Shooting in Downtown Toronto......Happy Boxing Day!

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Re: RE: Shooting in Downtown Toronto......Happy Boxing Day!

the caracal kid said:
that is a rediculous argument, nascar.

if we were to apply that type of logic to everything in society there would be nothing left.

see the following:
False analogy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
False analogy is a logical fallacy applying to inductive arguments.

In an analogy two concepts, objects, or events proposed to be similar in nature (A and B) are shown to have some common relationship with another property. The premise is that A has property X, and thus B must also have property X (due to the assumed similarity of A and B). Unfortunately, in the case of a false analogy, A and B are only superficially similar (if that) and are different in some fundamental way which influences their relationship with property X.

For example, in the field of International relations theory, the fallacy known as the 'domestic analogy' is committed when relationships between political communities (nations) are treated as analogous to relations within political communities (between individuals), such that familiar morals and remedies for interpersonal issues are projected onto foreign policy narratives (Hidemi Suganami, The Domestic Analogy and World Order Proposals, CUP, 1989).

Another example is the following:

Women are like tornados: they tear your life apart when they enter it and take your stuff with them when they leave.
Tornados are meterological phenomena.
Therefore, women are meterological phenomena.
This argument assumes that two subjects, namely women and tornados, which are comically alike in some respects are, therefore, alike in many other respects.

It's not ridiculous, Kid. This really comes down to an issue of rights and freedoms. Driving is a privilege, not a right. The right to own guns is a right enshrined within our constitution (at least it is here in the US).

Therefore, if anything I would think cars should be outlawed before guns. If not, what's the point of having rights and freedoms?
 

bhoour

Electoral Member
May 10, 2005
608
0
16
earth
Re: RE: Shooting in Downtown Toronto......Happy Boxing Day!

Nascar_James said:
bhoour said:
Cars also have an alternate purpose to killing - transportation. Guns don't........only killing.
I do think that cars should be banned, but that is a whole different thread.

Guns are used in winter sports. They are also used by everyday target shooters such as myself. So, no they are not mearly for killing.

Cars, just like guns do not kill. People kill.

The origional intent of a gun, was for killing. Not winter sports, or target practice.

People make a conscious choice to drive/ride in a car.
My friends did not make a conscious choice to be shot by a gun.
Your comparison of the two is absurd.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
67
Saint John, N.B.
Which does not address the freedom issue.

There a lots of things in society more dangerous than guns. A lot of those things could easily be done without.

Cigarettes, for example, kill 4000 people a year from unintentional second-hand smoke. That is besides the 40,000 smokers that die in a year from smoking related disease. But I do not see a move to ban people from possession of cigarettes, with multiple-year mandatory sentences for those that defy the ban.

Handguns killed 112 people in Canada in 2004.

Seems a little ridiculous, the idea of sending people to jail for two years for possession of a cigarette, doesn't it?

But for some reason, the government stealing my guns here in N.B. to stop people shooting each other in a Toronto neighbourhood makes sense.

I'm sorry. I just don't get it.
 

Summer

Electoral Member
Nov 13, 2005
573
0
16
Cleveland, Ohio, USA (for now...)
RE: Shooting in Downtown

Hunting is a perfectly legitimate use of a gun, and so is target practice. Hell, same is true for archery - those arrows were originally meant ot kill food or enemies. I guess archery shouldbe banned as well? How about fencing, since it evolved from swordplay? And martial arts, since not only can they be deadly, but originated as that?
 

the caracal kid

the clan of the claw
Nov 28, 2005
1,947
2
38
www.kdm.ca
Re: RE: Shooting in Downtown Toronto......Happy Boxing Day!

Nascar_James said:
It's not ridiculous, Kid. This really comes down to an issue of rights and freedoms. Driving is a privilege, not a right. The right to own guns is a right enshrined within our constitution (at least it is here in the US).

Therefore, if anything I would think cars should be outlawed before guns. If not, what's the point of having rights and freedoms?

you are correct; driving is a privilage.

However, perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the "right to bear arms"? Times and people change. The US is not the same country it was 200 years ago.

Now, as to guns and crime.
You and the others that uphold that you should be able to own guns if you use them responsibly are correct. Who are we as a society to strongarm one set of values onto everybody. If we are free nations that respect individual freedoms, and individuals we should not go down that path. Unfortunately it is hard for society/gov to determine when "for the greater good" some things should be forced into play. The compromise is that guns are controlled in some workable fashion so long as there is a need to. THe underlying issues of society need to be addessed to solve crime. However, this won't really happen given the structure of society today. Fixing social issues is the best approach to crime and violence. Harsh punishments are never the solution for they are reactionary and vengeful rather than proactive and caring.
 

iamcanadian

Electoral Member
Nov 30, 2005
730
0
16
www.expose-ontario.org
Canada always had very strict gun control laws before the registry and it was not a problem before then. After the registry an underground market was created much like prohibition did with alcohol.
 

Patsplace

New Member
Dec 26, 2005
23
0
1
I suppose that "Canadian reality" is defined by those that are concentrated in the greatest numbers. IE. Huge cities. These congregations of people come to conclusions that they agree on and suddenly it's the law of the land and everybody feels good because they've "done something about it." That by saying for the 17th time in law that you can't use guns this way, that it's going to make a difference to the people that already ignore the earlier 16 pronouncements. But guns kill people you say. Yeah and forks make people fat. Ban forks. Way more people are dieing from obesity than gun shots. But we have to start somewhere. Well start in the community that is producing the problem, not in rural BC. to deal with Toronto's problem.

So many of the concepts of firearms control seems to premise on the idea that it's the responsibility of the police to deal with these community problems. An ugly and unpleasant chore, that when it's done, the people that do it are ostracized, "Did you see what they did to him!!". Men and women of Canada abdicating their responsibility to look after their own neighborhoods is a goodly part of the problem.

At the risk of using a current political catch phrase and being branded with it, it really is time to "Stand Up For Canada." We can change this situation in a season or two. Look at what was done by the RESIDENTS of the Chicago ghettos. They took them back.

Canada and Canadians can do anything that we set our minds to.
Pat
 

iamcanadian

Electoral Member
Nov 30, 2005
730
0
16
www.expose-ontario.org
Switzerland - population 6 million

- # of publicly owned firearms - 2 million!
this includes approx. 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols;
- all men between the ages of 21-32 are given M57 assault rifles and 24 rounds of ammo by the government which they must keep at home;
- in addition there are few restrictions on buying guns;
- the government even sells off surplus firearms to citizens when new weapons are introduced;
- violent crime is very rare;
- there are minimal controls on public buildings;
- politicians rarely have police protection;
- gun crime is so low that statistics are not even kept.

+++++

Dated 2003. Recent firearms regulations have not made the streets of Australia any safer either:

-The total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again;
-Over the past 6 years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has continued to increase; robbery and armed robbery rates continue to rise with armed robbery increasing 166% nationwide.

In contrast, violent crime rates, and homicide rates in particular, have been falling in the United States. The drop in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world. In 18 of 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990’s.

+++++

A ban on all private ownership of handguns in Gresat Britain became law in November 1997. Based on factual research conducted in Great Britain since 1997, consider the following, all of which I have taken from the internet almost word for word. I take no credit for the hard work of others.

A study released in July 2001 by researchers at King’s College in London found “The use of handguns in crimes rose 40% in the 2 years after the weapons were banned.” The study also found that “It’s crystal clear from the research that the existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place. Policymakers have targeted the legitimate sporting and farming communities with ever-tightening laws, but the research clearly demonstrates that it is illegal guns which are the real threat to public safety. The study concluded that Britain’s experiment with gun prohibition has followed the same path as other government attempts at prohibition. Ever since guns were banned, every criminal has seen the merit of having one. In contrast, the U.S. has among the world’s lowest ‘hot’ burglary rates - defined as burglaries committed while people are in the building - at 13%. Compare that rate with GUN-FREE Great Britain’s rate, which is now up to 59%.

It’s logical. An American study showed that the #1 explanation from would-be burglars NOT to enter an occupied building was “I might get shot.”

“Criminals may be strolling down the road to Hell, but they’re not crazy enough to hurry the trip.”

“In June 2003 a CBS News report labelled Great Britain “one of the most violent urban societies in the western world”.

BBC News reported “a dramatic rise in violent crime in 1998 to the present (2001).” Statistics from the British Office of Home Affairs found that crime in Great Britain in 2001 was at epidemic levels, 60% higher per capita than in the U.S.”

Since the ban on all private ownership of handguns became law in 1997, handgun offences have risen each year since then. Overall, violent crime has spiked since that act of parliament.

A word of caution. It would be simplistic and dangerous to place all of the blame for this crime wave on the 1997 handgun ban. But it certainly has not “ended violent crime” as its supporters predicted. Illegal guns continue to flood the country. Young hoodlums and career criminals have no problem obtaining the firepower they need.

British social policy analyst, Michael S. Brown, O.D., sums up his government’s gun-ban implications for future generations of Britons. “It is no coincidence that crime typically goes up after a government enacts new gun restrictions. Several American researchers and criminologists have explored this effect. Whenever people give up their rights to self-defense in return for a promise of government protection, the results have been negative. No amount of social engineering will change this basic consequence of human nature. Unfortunately, the downward progression of gun control only goes on way. British subjects will never regain the basic human right of armed self defense.”
 

Nosferax

Nominee Member
Re: RE: Shooting in Downtown Toronto......Happy Boxing Day!

bhoour said:
the caracal kid said:
ban cars? ( i know, off topic, but please amuse me)

do you mean ban cars in downtown metro areas or do you mean ban cars everywhere. I agree with banning or limiting the use of cars in dense urban areas but don't see what the alternative to cars would be for inter-city travel (from a practical perspective given the realities of canadian geography and demographics)

It's not realaistic, I know . Our society is too to dependent, and lazy for this to ever happen. We need to find an alternate solution, to limit the pollution.

:roll:

We are dependent but not because of lazyness... at least not for me. I bought a car because I couldn't aford a house in Montreal. I was tired of paying for somebody else mortgage (rent) and also since I have the means I decide to vacate a low cost appartment for the benefit of somebody poorer than me and move out of the city. Now there isn't any convenient bus route near my new home and it's a 45 minute drive from home to work via the highway so that rules out biking also. The house cost me a pretty $160k. The same house in Montreal cost about $300k. And anyway, keep in mind that not every body could live in the city where they work that would cause another problem mainly overcrowding, raised rent due to demand being higher than the offer and more homelessness. So please don't make blanket statement.
 

Patsplace

New Member
Dec 26, 2005
23
0
1
Why, why, this man, this IAMCANADIAN must be silenced!! He speaks the truth and we can't have this!! What if more people heard him, what if people believed him? Goodness, he must be stopped!! We can't have truth intruding on our Soma induced fantasies. Why it's Un-Canadian. Next we'll be hearing that it's our duty to be able and willing to fight for our freedoms. That it's our responsibility to defend our homes and families. Heresy I say, heresy!!!!

Well done iamcanadian,
Regards,
Pat
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,352
53
48
Cars, just like guns do not kill. People kill.


given that there is merit to this statement.......it follows that guns (and cars??? ) should not be available to PEOPLE. (including kids ) So this supports my arguement for a gunless society ( In my dreams :roll:

dogs and cats can have all they want. :wink:
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,352
53
48
Patsplace said:
Why, why, this man, this IAMCANADIAN must be silenced!! He speaks the truth and we can't have this!! What if more people heard him, what if people believed him? Goodness, he must be stopped!! We can't have truth intruding on our Soma induced fantasies. Why it's Un-Canadian. Next we'll be hearing that it's our duty to be able and willing to fight for our freedoms. That it's our responsibility to defend our homes and families. Heresy I say, heresy!!!!

Well done iamcanadian,
Regards,
Pat


- :roll: -------------------------S-I-L-E-N-C-E----------------------
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
Re: RE: Shooting in Downtown

Summer said:
Yes, but it doesn't say that one must be a member of a militia to own guns.

However, I'm confused.... I thought we were discussing Canada, not the U.S.

I was just curious since Nascar mentioned the constitutional right to bear arms. I live in the US and have heard that a lot, but someone else once mentioned to me that the line is something like a well organized militia being necessary to protect something or other is the rational for the right to bear arms.
 

Summer

Electoral Member
Nov 13, 2005
573
0
16
Cleveland, Ohio, USA (for now...)
RE: Shooting in Downtown

This is the text of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It speaks of the necessity of a well-regulated militia, but it guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It doesn't differentiate between people who are or are not members of said militia.

The basic reason for this is because back in the time this was written, any citizen was as likely as any other to be asked to serve in such a milita, and if that happened, he'd better be ready to bring his own weapon, so that meant he'd better have one already, because things could happen at a moment's notice.
 

Nosferax

Nominee Member
Re: RE: Shooting in Downtown

Summer said:
This is the text of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It speaks of the necessity of a well-regulated militia, but it guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It doesn't differentiate between people who are or are not members of said militia.

The basic reason for this is because back in the time this was written, any citizen was as likely as any other to be asked to serve in such a milita, and if that happened, he'd better be ready to bring his own weapon, so that meant he'd better have one already, because things could happen at a moment's notice.

That's why they were called "Minuteman" if my memory serves me right...
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
Now I was reading in the Globe and Mail, on the internet, the peoples comments to this incident. And they are so racist it isn't funny. Now this one guy was saying ban all immigration to Canada from the Caribbean and kick out all Black people who were not born in Canada, who moved here from the 'Revolution'. He called all black people useless and welfare bums. However, I know two friends who go up to the University and work hard. There is at least about two dozen black people going to University in the community I live in and there isn't a real black community here. And some are from the Caribbean and are trying to make their way in this world.

So racist-bigots should claim up and stop spouting their racist remarks and try to get at the root causes of this gun crime plague. I am not saying that we need a gun ban, but I think a gun ban would be helpful but it is only a bandade. The root causes must be tackled.
 

iamcanadian

Electoral Member
Nov 30, 2005
730
0
16
www.expose-ontario.org
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

The enshrined right to bear arms must be read in context with their declaration of independance which was the document of reference at the time.

The right was clearly designed to allow people to defend themselves against their own government by violent revolution if it became necessary.