News   Dec 23, 2025
 540     3 
News   Dec 23, 2025
 1.3K     1 
News   Dec 23, 2025
 2K     1 

Boxing Day Shooting

Low self-esteem or low self-confidence is usually the cause of girls throwing themselves at guys that barely give them any respect and not looking after themselves properly. It is also the reason females often have trouble breaking up with abusive boyfriends / husbands. I'm not sure what factors would lead to low self-esteem in these individuals... perhaps financial issues, perhaps the lack of people or parents that believe in them and build up their self-esteem, perhaps a less optimistic view of their own future... not sure of the origins but usually low self-esteem or low self-confidence is the cause.
 
I would tend to agree that parenting does (or doesnt) do a lot to help instill self esteem in kids as they grow up. A good parent can help raise a strong, proud child even if they are not in the greatest of financial or socio-economic situations. Just a casual observation, but, I think a good way to view this is go to a kids baseball or soccer game. The kids that are on the field and that look the happiest and are having the most fun are the ones with parents in the stands cheering and encouraging them. Contrast that with the kids whos parents are constantly questioning their performance (a hockey rink is a great way to see this side of things) or the kids who simply get dropped off and never have their parents their to encourage them.

Of course lots of other factors can contribute as well. Whether one is living in a healthy community, what their school is like, whether they have developed good social skills, plus financial and socio-economic conditions do play some role.

And I would also say that our society in general does play some role in helping to degrade peoples self esteem. Kids are subjected to a bombardment of marketing and advertising media (television, corporate music, radio, magazines, advertisments, etc) that idealizes and sexualizes body images. One station is trying to sell you 18 year old lolita sex bombs like Brittany Spears, while another station is telling you sex is evil and that you should practice abstinence and only whores fool around. There are so many contradictory messages that go out to youth that it becomes really difficult for anyone to process it all and figure out what the hell it all means. The same logic is true in males. While body image is less of an issue (although more and more young men are developing body image problems), you have messages of money, luxury, bitches and ho's hanging off your arms, sipping champagne in fancy clubs and driving around in a Hummer or Mercedes. Of course this doesnt just apply to "thug culture" but many other segments as well. Its keeping up with the Joneses and having a 2000 sq ft home, a 4 door sedan, a prim and proper pretty wife, cute kids, backyard with a BBQ, and an Oak and stainless steel kitchen filled with imported foods.

Its quantity over quality. Its new and shiny, over classic and a little worn. IKEA over antiques. Big boobs adorned with the latest and trendiest labels over natural bodies and fashion sense that fits the person. Unfortunately when you live in a consumer society where everything is commodity and has a dollar value and everything is for sale, it becomes very easy to loss confidence in yourself when you are struggling to make ends meet and pay your bills while everyone is walking around with white cords hanging from their ears, or when your a 5'3, 125 lb female with a healthy natural body and being called fat because you dont look like the 90lb anorexic singers that plaster billboards, television screens and hang from the windows of stores in the mall. And if almost all the images you see and messages you perceive each day presenting a view of society that might be achieved by the upper 1% are not being countered with images and messages of the reality of the rest of the 99% of society, it doesnt take long to develop a distorted view of yourself and what is around you.
 
Is it really that surprising though? A good way of looking at it is if someone in your family dies. Your going to deeply affected by it because it is someone who is so close and connected to you, even if it just a grandparent who has died naturally and peacefully because of old age. But would you expect anyone outside your immediate friends and family to have the same feelings? They might feel some sympathy but to expect them to feel the same pain and sorrow would be foolish.

The same is true for however one defines their life. If community is really important to you than someone dying in yor neighborhood might have an impact on you. But maybe your neighbor, who doesnt really care that much about where he lives and just likes his house and his comfy little individual life, isnt going to be impacted at all. Does that make him a bad person because he doesnt share the same connection to his neighborhood that others might?

This same idea can be applied to whatever nation you live in, whatever race or culture you identify with, even whether you care more about people dying in car accidents rather than pedestrians being killed. Everybody divides and subdivides their life into neat little hierarchies and categories that define who and how and what they relate with.

Im no different. While Blixa may identify with a more classic definition of Canadian and have his own feelings about how feels when different people are killed, so do I. Mine are different. Truthfully, when tragedy strikes a pampered, upper class, pretty white girl, I could car less. But when a young black male is killed by gang violence, I actually do care. Not because I have connection with black culture per say, or because I idolize the thug life, but because I could care less about the upper class and care much more about the lower class, the marginalized, those who have been disadvantaged through no actions of there own.

Sure everyone should care equally about everyone in a perfect ideal world, offering the same love and compassion to any person no matter there race, religion, creed, nationality or whatever category you want to put them in. But, we are human, and we form bonds and connections with those we feel we have the most in common with. And its also true that most people, who are humans, who are, still animals, are going to be by nature more interested in their own survival than others. Its human nature.

Im not sure the family analogy applies. If our society is as open and tolerant as it claims, the death of a young, innocent black boy or multiple killings at Dundas Square should illicit the same response as the Boxing Day shootings. Personally, all of them disgusted me...the ethnicity of the victims was irrelevant. Someone feeling more outrage simply because the victim is what we all white (which encompasses a wide range of backgrounds) is a bit disturbing - it's not like you know them personally...skin colour is the only connection.

You mention you sympathize with black victims more...but who's to say any of these victims are thugs themselves, poor, or involved in any criminal activity at all (maybe Im misinterpreting what you said). We seem to stereotype so easily without even realizing it.
 
^And it makes you want to shoot someone?

Uh....?

Nothing directly makes you want to shoot someone other than some other person aggravating you past your boiling point or convincing you someone must be shot, a gun being available, and a lack of concience or mental strength to make you think it through. Indirectly anything that lowers your boiling point (such as stress, personal issues, etc.), makes a gun too easily available, or reduces the concience or mental strength of an individual (lack of parenting, schooling, positive role models, self-confidence, self-esteem, etc.) are important indirect reasons for a shooting. If we as a society want to reduce shootings we need to deal with all the factors that lead to the shooting, not simply the after effects. The criminal justice system only deals with criminals that have committed a crime that police know about... tinkering with the justice system isn't going to stop most shootings because until the gun is fired the people committing these crimes aren't murderers, they are misguided individuals.

I also laugh at the idea of Black History being one of the solutions to the problem. It attempts to address the lack of positive role model issue but I seriously doubt the value of a positive role model in a history book would outweigh the value of a positive role model at home, in the classroom, on TV, or in other forms of media. I seriously doubt that the historic role model would outweigh the negatives of making the issue a "Black" issue rather than a more inclusive "lack of role model" issue. If the only positive role model you can find is in a history book and that role model doesn't speak to you, instill confidence in you, encourage you, etc... what is the point. Good role models are ones you can talk to.
 
Re the site of the crime--from the Inventory of Heritage Properties

340 YONGE ST

Thornton-Smith Building, 1921, John M. Lyle -adopted by City Council on March 15, 1974

From Patricia McHugh "Toronto Architecture: A City Guide"

"One of Toronto's most amiable small shop buildings. Lyle won first place in the Ontario Association of Architects' competition for this "modernized Italian" treatment, complete with red-tile roof. The large display windows on two floors were a requirement of the client, an antiques dealer and interior decorator."
 
This is such an interesting thread. Great comments here all around.

Moving on...

Don't we all have our own biases and preconceived notions? I would seriously question the sincerity of anybody who claimed not to. Lets face it, we all have our own likes and dislikes too, don't we? Whether we are more inclined to feel sympathy for the vicitim here or the perpetrator may be fodder for debate but probably really comes down to one's own perspective.

From my perspective the central issue here, brought tragically and glaringly to my attention with the boxing day shooting (whether that makes me racist or not I do not know) is that it is overwhelmingly clear that the escalating problem of gun violence in Toronto is being perpetrated to an inordinate degree by one specific ethno-cultural demographic of men, and yet nobody - not the media, not our elected officials, and most importantly not our community leaders (Whether such community is perceived to actually exist or not) - is willing to acknowledge this. My argument is that this kind of denial will never benefit anyone, including the demographic at risk here. It's an old cliche, but it is said that the "truth will set you free", and I always firmly believe that only good will unltimately come from a truthful and open discussion of any issue. This is what is called for now.

Also, something that I don't think has been brought up too much here is that part of the massive reaction precipitated by the boxing day shooting is due to the frustration that many are feeling over the anxiety about the sort of consequences this type of public crime can have for our city and our way of life. People feel that they are losing something here, something that is very valued. This frustration is no doubt causing a backlash that is being fuelled by the refusal to acknowledge what to most is so glaringly apparant.
 
From my perspective the central issue here, brought tragically and glaringly to my attention with the boxing day shooting (whether that makes me racist or not I do not know) is that it is overwhelmingly clear that the escalating problem of gun violence in Toronto is being perpetrated to an inordinate degree by one specific ethno-cultural demographic of men, and yet nobody - not the media, not our elected officials, and most importantly not our community leaders (Whether such community is perceived to actually exist or not) - is willing to acknowledge this.

What is the benefit of trying to find a similarity between them if the similarity has nothing to do with the violence. Yippee... many are black men and perhaps many are Jamaican. So what? Unless you can show being black has something to do with it there is no point in focusing on that. The focus on the colour of their skin or the country they came from is a witch hunt which doesn't explain why the crime is committed. There is no logical connection between skin pigmentation and the flag over an individuals birth place and violence. It doesn't explain the South Asian gangs which were more visible in the news in prior years in Toronto and the Asian gangs in Vancouver. Currently gangs in Toronto might be Black but gangs haven't always been Black or Jamaican. If we paint the current problem Black, what happens if a Russian gang takes root... do we paint it White... do we blame it on a flag with three stripes white, blue, and red? If the gangs were Russian would you ask why politicians are not willing to acknowledge its a White problem?

In securities commission investigations the CEOs abusing their power are predominantly white. Does that make it a white problem? Maybe we should have a White History month in hopes future white CEOs will have a better moral compass. Many old folks lost their retirement savings because of White folks. Maybe police should randomly pull over White people to see if they are sneaking office documents out of the office in their cars like "Lord Black". Wait a minite did someone say Lord Black... its the Blacks... blame the Blacks.

I think trying to paint the problem as a Black problem is an attempt to absolve the rest of us... to say it couldn't happen in our neighbourhood because we're not Black. My kids would never do that if they were poor and were in a single parent household in the poor part of town with a mother that couldn't support the family and the kids and lived a life without much hope... because we're White!?? I think its a self defence mechanism to try and distance one's self from the inhumaine actions of others because of the fear that in identical situations we might be equally misguided and we would like to deny the possibility of that. There was a time when most murders were White stabbings... I don't think people labelled it as a White problem back then. Is the problem that the weapon changed from a knife to a gun, or that the skin pigmentation is now different than our own? I think trying to make it a Black issue rather than a societal issue is simply trying to distance ourselves from the darker side of humanity.

If race has anything to do with these crimes it would have something to do with the racism or stereotypes they face growing up and the stereotypes and negative role models that they see around them in their community and in media. That wouldn't make it a Black issue since these issues could surface in any community under similar conditions.
 
Yippee... many are black men and perhaps many are Jamaican. So what?

It's important because once you acknowledge it, the next step is asking why so many young black males are being drawn into this lifestyle. And only then can you figure out what to do about it. It's really not that controversial, many black leaders acknowledge there's a problem... just like terrorism has become a problem in the Islamic world and alcoholism is a problem amongst Native Canadians. Being overly PC with these issues won't get us anywhere.
 
great response enviro.

i think a great part of of the problem is a negative role model thing. the youth today is being fed a culture of agressive capitalism - get rich or die trying. that is the problem.

just like the commies, the fascists and the socialists, even capitalism has its bad side.

irresponsible capitalist propaganda is being targeted toward young black males telling them they must have money, lots of women, fancy cars, etc, at all cost or else they are nobody. the tragic thing is that they are supporting their own opression. they have become slaves to materialism and it's not whites who reel them in.

the fact that gangster culture in the media fuels capitalism ensures that nothing will be done since the way things are are good for business.

this is why timothy leary was the most dangerous man in america yet fity cent is a god.
 
It's important because once you acknowledge it, the next step is asking why so many young black males are being drawn into this lifestyle.

There is no point announcing one observation in a detailed study. That fact on its own has nothing to do with anything. They have baggy pants.... why not question why politicians aren't admitting that we have a "baggy pants" problem on our hands. An in depth study into the problem would look at all the factors but would not be so hung up on skin pigmentation. There is much more to the problem than outward observations of the individuals involved.

many black leaders acknowledge there's a problem

And "White leaders" reacted more loudly when a white person was shot on Boxing Day. I know. I think it is misguided that we all don't take ownership of the issue regardless. It is misguided that "Black leaders" even exist with such designation... follow me you people of similar skin colour? We need to get past it... the reason that it is only happening in one community is probably a symptom of the fact that society hasn't gotten past race. It's not logical to feel a greater connection to a white person than a black person when you haven't determined what type of person they are, what their likes and dislikes are, what their principals are, etc... yet too many do feel a greater connection to people of the same race. These youth feel a stronger connection to 50 Cent than other artists... perhaps its all part of the problem.
 
"They have baggy pants.... why not question why politicians aren't admitting that we have a "baggy pants" problem on our hands."

Huh? Baggy pants don't kill people.

"It is misguided that "Black leaders" even exist with such designation... follow me you people of similar skin colour? We need to get past it..."

Well we're not a melting pot, different communities based on race, religion, nationality, etc. do exist and that's not about to change any time soon.

"These youth feel a stronger connection to 50 Cent than other artists... perhaps its all part of the problem."

Who are "these youth" you're talking about? See, even you have identified them as a particular group. I don't see why you're so touchy about this. Social phenomena within certain identifiable groups are studied all the time in sociology. It's not as taboo as you might think it is.
 
"If we paint the current problem Black, what happens if a Russian gang takes root... do we paint it White... do we blame it on a flag with three stripes white, blue, and red?"

Well, yes, because it is a Russian gang, not a gang filled with random people that have nothing in common (is there such a thing outside of cults?). Black Jamaican gangs are filled with black Jamaicans. I know several Jamaicans that are not in gangs, but none of them are black. I'm pretty sure there's no Tamils in any branches of the Hell's Angels, because they tend to join Tamil gangs.

Of course your skin pigmentation plays a role. If you look black, you will experience racism. You're probably more likely to be confronted by black gang members or pressured to join a gang. You're less likely to have a good education and have a good job because your parents were also less likely to have them. People are less blatantly racist now but the effects of institutionalized prejudice from generations ago still linger.

"And "White leaders" reacted more loudly when a white person was shot on Boxing Day"

They reacted strongly before they found out she was white - they reacted strongly because they heard a black guy shot people outside of the ghetto! Spider Jones brought this up in an news interview a few days ago. Toronto could brush aside worrying about shootings when thugs were killing each other off in isolation, but when they start happening anywhere in broad daylight, like Jane Creba, Louise Russo, Tamara Carter, or the guy that was killed by a freak bullet that came through his bedroom wall a block from my house, the media picks up on it and people begin claiming they feel less safe. Though still statistically rare, there seems to be more high profile random shooting victims. Politicians wouldn't be blathering on about this latest shooting so much if six other people weren't also shot.
 
I think the elevated concern about this shooting is quite rational and not racist.

When coming to grips with news of horrible crimes, we all search for reasons why they couldn't happen to us. Reasons like - the victim was engaged in dangerous/violent activities, was in a bad part of town, knew the perpetrator ("and I don't know anyone like that"), etc. That keeps us calm and helps us go on with life.

These rationalizations of continued calm are quite valid - if the distinctions are real. They rely on the details that are hidden under the general murder rate statistics. Maybe the murder rate is 1.8/100,000/year. But that doesn't mean much to me if two thirds of those murdered are associated to criminal gangs and I'm not in a criminal gang. If that's the case then my chances of being murdered in a year are significantly lower than 1.8/100K. However if those murdered are chosen at random from the population, the general rate applies to me exactly.

7 people were shot in a gun fight in the middle of town on a busy shopping day. The victims represent pretty close to a random sample of the city's population. So, in this case, almost no-one has a good reason to say that it couldn't happen to them. For people who don't have a 'high' risk of being murdered for other reasons (because of their lifestyle or the company they keep, etc.), events like this suggest a significant increase in their risk of being murdered.

The increased frequency of events like this has produced a real increase in risk for most of the population. The increase in risk for most of the population is much greater than the overall increase in the murder rate. (Allthough the risk is still small). That's why there should be elevated concern and attention given to this crime. And that's why citing the still, generally low murder rate misses the significance of these events.
 
I agree with everything you are saying TOinSF and for what its worth I don't necessarily think "White leaders" all of a sudden reacted because a white person was shot and believe the reason had more to do with it being "the middle of town on a busy shopping day". I also agree that the elevated concern about this shooting specifically is not racist although it might be slightly selfish in that the reason concern is elevated is because people like ourselves living normal peaceful non-violent lives in a nice downtown shopping area might get hit... as if people in a bad neighbourhood don't necessary warrant the same concern.

My "White leaders" comment was meant only to mirror the "Black leader" comment it followed to give an alternate perspective. Many killings in bad neighbourhoods were not given the same focus and if people want to focus on skin colour the "White leaders" reacted when a "white person" was shot in an area frequented by well-off "white people". I don't believe that is the mentality of the mayor, the premier, and the prime-minister that it was all about being "white" but that is what it looks like if colour of skin is given too much focus. The racism comes in when the marching band starts making a big deal about the skin-colour and nation of origin of the criminals above all other considerations which more likely play a factor and blame a community for the problems based solely on skin-colour and nation of origin. By itself skin-colour and country of origin are irrelevant facts.
 

Back
Top