Booter
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,165
- Points
- 1,010
Unlike our east coast divisions, E Division takes this shit seriously,

Unlike our east coast divisions, E Division takes this shit seriously,
Good catch on both of these. And for anyone who can't get thru to the NY Times piece, here's someplace else to check: https://archive.is/x9LcNLooks like the shooterâs online life has been largely identified and dissected. Taking these at face value, thereâs an ugly and increasingly familiar picture of a really, really screwed up kid who fell deeper into online nihilistic radicalization.
First, a solid article by the New York Times; I believe this has been gifted, I was able to read it sans paywall: Canada School Shooterâs Online Life Showed Interest in Violent Extremism
Second, a Twitter thread by Becca Spinks, who independently researches and basically hunts down online extremists. She very much knows her shit in this space:
A lesson learned should be that online radicalization is an equal opportunity employer.Taking these at face value, thereâs an ugly and increasingly familiar picture of a really, really screwed up kid who fell deeper into online nihilistic radicalization.
With the opposing camp saying âLookit all the guns,â right?A lesson learned should be that online radicalization is an equal opportunity employer.
Unfortunately our society is in a place where a tragedy like this immediately has many racing to affirm some kind of proof of their views (see, trans kids are dangerous/see, straight white males are violent/ see, immigrants are violent).
The Alberta separation online crew wasted no time in taking this tragedy and trying to capitalize on it.
I can't recall a mass shooting incident involving young people that did not have social media interaction as a root cause. Regardless of the risk of trampling on their "rights" perhaps a ban as Australia has done might be in order. Perhaps a better solution than trying to ban firearms.With the opposing camp saying âLookit all the guns,â right?Like I said, just enough to weaponize the issue of choice (no pun intended).
With the opposing camp saying âLookit all the guns,â right?Like I said, just enough to weaponize the issue of choice (no pun intended).
I hate to say it but returning the weapons is in keeping with our catch and release justice system.Speaking of weapons, my guess is that this issue will grow quickly into a messy brush fire for all levels of government next week ...
Why were confiscated guns returned to home of suspect before Tumbler Ridge shooting?
Police say we may never know the motive for Tuesday's mass shooting, but the key to the investigation is knowing why guns were returned to the shooter's home.
Questions are being raised about why guns confiscated from the home of the suspected killer in Tuesdayâs Tumbler Ridge mass shooting were returned before the attack.
Those unanswered questions come as Jesse Van Rootselaarâs well-documented history of mental illness becomes more apparentâa history that included visits from police and a detention under the Mental Health Act.
Elenore Sturko, former RCMP officer and Independent MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, noted that when someoneâs guns are confiscated, it is their âlegal right then to make an application to have those firearms returned.â
âSo for what reason they were returned, what arguments were made, who those firearms belonged to and whether or not they were the firearms used in this attack, those are questions that need to be answered,â she said.
![]()
Why were confiscated guns returned to home of suspect before Tumbler Ridge shooting?
Questions are being raised about why guns confiscated from the home of the suspected killer in Tuesdayâs Tumbler Ridge mass shooting were returned before the attack.www.ctvnews.ca
The reasoning behind why firearms were returned to a home where someone had rampant mental health issues, has been taken into custody multiple times by police and temporarily committed to a hospital, should be investigated.I hate to say it but returning the weapons is in keeping with our catch and release justice system.
Would the current rules allow that kind of discretion, even if the license holder isn't the one with mental health history? Or is it a "catch & release"/"not enough of a clear problem to keep holding onto the stuff" thing as mentioned by @YZT580 ?... I'm not sure what authority would approve their return (RCMP, CFO, judge?) but anyone with half a brain should have looked at that file and history and saw how important it was not to have firearms in that household.
No shortage of stuff out there being discussed, for sure.Honestly, to me the biggest issue is the online nihilistic violent extremist recruiting that is the main issue. The mental health issues and access to guns was the kindling to that spark.
Nihilistic violent extremism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
764 (organization) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
![]()
No Lives Matter - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It's plausible the mom argued:Would the current rules allow that kind of discretion, even if the license holder isn't the one with mental health history? Or is it a "catch & release"/"not enough of a clear problem to keep holding onto the stuff" thing as mentioned by @YZT580 ?
I honestly asked because not owning a firearm myself, I didn't know the gritty details of the rules/process - thanks for the rest of the story.Iâm shocked when Canadians are shocked their laws work in a way that the police arenât allowed to just hang on to things forever.
The firearms lawful owner petitioned, which would be not police making the disposition, for their return- the local police would follow whatever disposition they had usually requiring a licenced person to take control of them as per the regulations on storage etc.
We had firearms disposition hearings quite often up north and it is my experience that it ends with someone taking control of the firearms not with their destruction. In my experience itâs a family member or a friend who then explains they have a plan for where they will move the firearms or a person they can have store them.
They then, shockingly, donât keep their word.