Reality Check: Liberal handgun ban

[Ani_Ibi]

Originally Posted by Philip P
Philip P:

Now the reduction—> Why do guns provide the most effective defense? Because they represent a threat. The threat of what? That you may get shot. As people wish to avoid getting shot, this acts as a deterrent. Yet to be an effective threat, it must be credible. The right to use a gun in self defense therefore includes the right to shoot the gun in self defense, at your attacker if necessary. Ergo, the pro-gun side is claiming the right to shoot people.

reduction: vt. 1. to lessen, as in size, price, etc. 2. to change to a different form 3. to lower, as in rank or condition 4. to subdue or conquer - vi. to lose weight, as by dieting

You have reduced the multiple uses of a gun into the unique one that suits how you wish the pro-gun argument to be represented = misrepresentation.
vern humphrey:

So you not only make the false accusation, you repeat it.

Vern is right. You are making no effort to reconcile differences or achieve common language. The original poster who made the first summary of positions was in a negotiating stance with the pro-gun posters. You, however, are not trying to negotiate with us. You are trying to have it your way. Your way, or the highway.

To ‘sum up’ the pro-gun position as ‘the right to shoot people’ is to ignore the 90% of gun functions in confrontations with criminals which is that no shots are fired. No shots, zero shots, zip, nada.

We’ve said that several times before. What’s wrong with the first time?

Not only have we said that, but we have said this: in a neighbourhood where it is known that the citizenry own guns, confrontations are reduced. So guns are not shown. No threats are made, either way. Opportunities for things to get out of control are reduced.

Not only have we said that, but we have said this: in a neighbourhood – like Washington DC – where it is known that the citizenry do not own guns, the chances of violent confrontations between the citizenry and criminals are increased 60 times. That is, the chances of a law-abiding citizen getting hurt by a criminal are 60 times greater than in neighbourhoods where it is known that the citizenry own guns.

So following your example, would it be fair for the pro-gun posters to ‘sum up’ your position by saying:

anti-gun posters: unarmed citizens have the right to get shot; or

anti-gun posters: criminals have the right to shoot unarmed citizens?

No, I don’t think so. It is not logical – or even courteous – to say these things. Just as it is not logical or courteous to say that the pro-gun posters have the right to shoot people.

 

[Philip_P]

Ani Ibi:

So following your example, would it be fair for the pro-gun posters to ‘sum up’ your position by saying:

anti-gun posters: unarmed citizens have the right to get shot; or

anti-gun posters: criminals have the right to shoot unarmed citizens?

I see nothing personally insulting in this. This is a good example of a reductio ad absurdum.

I have seen, on this thread and other threads, implications that anti-gun posters do not care about crime, are denying basic human rights, are on the same moral level as those who denied equal access to public facilities based on race, would not care if they or their loved ones were killed or raped, are in contradiction of Catholic teachings…

All fairly serious slurs, if taken seriously. But why would I take it seriously? Do you think anyone on these boards seriously believes anyone else doesn’t care about crime, or wants their loved ones killed, or believes that criminals should be allowed free reign? Of course not. Debate is full of hyperbole by its nature.

This is not to say that everything and anything is acceptable. We should not accuse people of committing crimes, for instance. We cannot impersonate other posters. Basic things like that.

As far as reductios though, no, I see no reason why they are out of bounds. Now, one could argue that it is wiser to restrict oneself to stating one’s own position. That’s a good general rule, and if nothing else this whole exchange has reinforced that to me. So no, I can’t offer you an apology as I still find your indignation unjustified, but if you want to feel you’ve taken something away from this debate, it can be the knowledge that I’m less likely to attempt a *reductio *in the future.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

I see nothing personally insulting in this. This is a good example of a reductio ad absurdum.

First of all, it is not reductio ad absurdum. To use *reductio ad absurdum * you must limit yourself to the other side’s argument – you are prohibited from changing it.

Secondly, you have offended us. That, by definition, makes it insulting.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Con held in cop shoot Officers chasing ATM bandits narrowly escape harm as ‘Weedman’ allegedly fires point-blank

A man had been getting cash from an ATM on King [Street] when he was robbed by two men, one of whom pushed a revolver in his face… As the two robbers headed east on King, MacDonald said the victim spotted a cruising patrol car and flagged it down. “They get out of the car and start chasing them right away,” MacDonald said. “The chase started, the shot went off and he was caught, within seconds.” After firing at the officer, the gunman dropped his weapon and was tackled. The second officer abandoned his pursuit of the other bandit – who remains at large – and helped to arrest the alleged gunman.

“There was a bit of a struggle,” MacDonald said. One cop has five years service, the other 17, but it’s not known whom was fired upon. All the victim’s money was recovered and he suffered only an abrasion on his cheek… On Dec. 15, 2004, Edwards, 23, pleaded guilty in Newmarket court to four weapons offences after prosecutors agreed to drop a first-degree charge in the murder of Jesse Lamonday, 21. He was sentenced to 50 months in jail but was given 38 months credit for time served, leaving a sentence of 12 months.

It’s not known if he was released earlier on parole or statutory release. A friend of Edwards, Donald Justin Berry, 20, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in the case and was sentenced to life in prison. Lamonday was shot dead over $10 worth of dope, court was told last year. Edwards, known as “the Weedman,” had sold him the drugs on credit. On May 11, 2003, Edwards and Berry both carried loaded handguns to Canada’s Wonderland in Vaughan and confronted Lamonday. Berry shot him dead in front of his girlfriend.

In handing down the one-year sentence, Justice Ted Minden said Edwards had lived a life premised and dependent on crime. “Sadly, it would appear the prospects of rehabilitation seem remote,” Minden said. Edwards is charged with armed robbery, pointing a firearm, two counts of using a firearm in an offence, two counts of possessing a dangerous weapon, two counts of assault with a weapon, attempted murder, aggravated assault, discharging a firearm, assault with intent to resist arrest, failing to comply with probation, possession of marijuana and four other weapons offences.

Here is the equation:

Criminal uses gun to murder drug addict over $10 worth of dope + judges gives criminal a slap on the wrist and releases him to reoffend + law-abiding citizen does not carry gun + police put their lives on the line to recapture armed criminal + politicians continue to use the ‘root cause’ argument to blame the victims of violent crime = open season on law-abiding citizens in Canada.

Do the math.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Danger in the line of duty

Recent GTA [Greater Toronto Area] incidents in which police were fired upon:

• May 23, 2005 – Two 12 Division officers trade gunfire with a man after pulling over a car near Black Creek Dr. and Eglinton Ave. No one is injured.
• Nov. 26, 2004 – Durham police and a gang of suspected car thieves shoot at each other near Brock Rd., south of Taunton Rd. All the shots miss.
• July 8, 2004 – A gunman shoots Const. Noel De Guzman in the legs then stands over him and fires another shot into the pavement near his ear. The gun then jams and De Guzman’s partner wounds the gunman in the arm. De Guzman has since returned to work.
• Jan. 10, 2004 – Antonio Bellon injures Sgt. Allen Jenkins in the arm with a shotgun. Another officer shoots Bellon dead near Rogers Rd. and Dufferin St.
• Dec. 17, 2001 – Const. Tony Macias is shot as he chases a suspect near Weston Rd. and Lawrence Ave. He’s hit in the collarbone and the bullet ricochets down through his lung. He’s since returned to work. The shooter has never been caught.

Officer’s shooting shocks Laval

A 40-year-old man has been charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of a 25-year-old police officer after she responded to what appeared to be a routine noise complaint at a Laval apartment complex… Constable Valérie Gignac was killed after responding to the call with her partner. She was the eighth Canadian police officer killed in the line of duty this year…

Montreal’s La Presse reported Thursday that the suspect in the case had been convicted earlier this week of harassing a police officer and fined $500. At an earlier court appearance, the man was ordered released under several conditions, including a ban on possessing firearms. He asked for, however, and was granted, permission to have one rifle for hunting, sources told La Presse.

The Globe and Mail, meanwhile, reported that the suspect had been recently released from prison under certain conditions and that he was known to have a history of erratic behaviour. The report said the man often turned up at a police station near his home, expressing his fondness for women on the force…

Chief Gariepy also said investigators are now looking at whether the accused legally had the weapon in question at the time of the shooting. He described the gun as a high-calibre rifle, but said it was not a restricted weapon and could be purchased with the appropriate acquisition certificate. However, the police chief also noted that, even with a certificate, the court might not have allowed the man to have that type of weapon in his possession.