Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[Coach]

Because it could have been obtained purely through legal means, left up there, and subsequetly used for the same purpose. You seem more concerned that the gun had it's serial numbers scratched off and the guy who put it there was unlicensed than the fact that there was a weapon stashed in the school.

So if this was a purely legal firearm, belonging to an owner who has legally hunted with it for years, and it was found like this and the owner went "Whoops my bad" and they fined him for having his gun stored improperly, that would be fine? No other investigation needed?

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Because it could have been obtained purely through legal means, left up there, and subsequetly used for the same purpose.

Could never have been used for any legal, lawful use as it's very existence makes it a prohibited device.

You seem more concerned that the gun had it's serial numbers scratched off and the guy who put it there was unlicensed than the fact that there was a weapon stashed in the school.

Yeah that is my largest concern since guns with serial numbers filed out are usually hot and/or are being held for future commission of a crime. I'm not worried about the licensed guy, I'm worried about the unlicensed guy.

Now police are saying the guns were being used for drug trade activities. Not shocked at all.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Could never have been used for any legal, lawful use as it's very existence makes it a prohibited device.



Yeah that is my largest concern since guns with serial numbers filed out are usually hot and/or are being held for future commission of a crime. I'm not worried about the licensed guy, I'm worried about the unlicensed guy.

Now police are saying the guns were being used for drug trade activities. Not shocked at all.

Im not debating that guns with filed serial numbers aren't used in crimes. There's no reason to do that otherwise. But look to my edit above for an additional scenario. Someone could have a legal firearm, used for legal purposes for years, and then go and do something like this and you would be ok with just a fine for improper storage and they wouldn't need to be investigated further because their firearm was obtained legally, had all serial numbers, and owned by licensed owner?

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Im not debating that guns with filed serial numbers aren't used in crimes. There's no reason to do that otherwise. But look to my edit above for an additional scenario. Someone could have a legal firearm, used for legal purposes for years, and then go and do something like this and you would be ok with just a fine for improper storage and they wouldn't need to be investigated further because their firearm was obtained legally, had all serial numbers, and owned by licensed owner?

What makes you think there's just a fine?

Under C-68 you wouldn't see a fine, it's a criminal offense and you would see jail time.

[Coach]

Interesting. I assume there's some discretion involved in that. IE, if my hunting rifle is leaning against it's locker, and not locked up, is that jail time?

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Interesting. I assume there's some discretion involved in that. IE, if my hunting rifle is leaning against it's locker, and not locked up, is that jail time?

Yes there would likely be discretion, dependent on the judge and your past.

If your legally owned non restricted firearm was left unsecure in your home, you have no criminal record, you probably wouldn't see jail time. But you now have a criminal record, you will be fined, lose your guns, and go through a long expensive court case.

If you leave your legally owned restricted firearm unsecured, in a place other than your residence, in a place where you have no authority to transport it... Bite the pillow, we're coming in dry.

[2Stonedbirds]

http://globalnews.ca/news/2274776/gu...still-missing/

This is a all too common occurrence in this country. Off hand there is somewhere around 650 firearms stolen from police each year in Canada. Of course I can't find the exact number or stat, I'll keep looking.

Have the CPS found their stolen AR yet?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Off hand there is somewhere around 650 firearms stolen from police each year in Canada. Of course I can't find the exact number or stat, I'll keep looking.

Wow, yeah definitely see if you can find anything, I'd be interested. With zero knowledge of police gun theft rates, that appears to be an absurdly high number of stolen firearms.

I know there's 36 million people here, but I have a hard time believing 650 are stolen every year. Especially considering how big of news it was when one gun was stolen from an officer in Calgary.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Im not debating that guns with filed serial numbers aren't used in crimes. There's no reason to do that otherwise. But look to my edit above for an additional scenario. Someone could have a legal firearm, used for legal purposes for years, and then go and do something like this and you would be ok with just a fine for improper storage and they wouldn't need to be investigated further because their firearm was obtained legally, had all serial numbers, and owned by licensed owner?

It's comments like this (and I'm in no way singling you out MattyC) that makes me thing that the average Canadian doesn't really know what laws are in place regarding firearm ownership in Canada.

It's no joke, a lot is expected of us and I for one am very much OK with it. As far as improper storage of firearms go, you mess up and I s**t you not, they will throw the book at you and throw it hard.

Even then, you do do it right and you could STILL be in a world of trouble. One of the examples of this I always think back to was a case against a guy who went out of town for the weekend. Burglars broke into his house and spent the entire weekend trying to crack open his gun safe. They eventually did and took most of his firearms. Homeowner comes home, sees his safe is open and first thing he does is call the cops to alert them to it. They come over AND CHARGE HIM WITH IMPROPER STORAGE OF FIREARMS. He spent years and tens of thousands of dollars defending himself, thankfully successfully but it shouldn't have come down to that in the first place. The guy spent a few thousand dollars on a full on gunsafe and still gets charged with improper storage.

I think that would cause most people to scratch their head in disbelief.

[Wormius]

I think the point, maybe I am wrong, that MattyC was making is that it is surprising that people find the improper storage angle of the story,more concerning than the fact that somebody hid guns at the university and what possible sinister motive was behind that.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Wow, yeah definitely see if you can find anything, I'd be interested. With zero knowledge of police gun theft rates, that appears to be an absurdly high number of stolen firearms.

I know there's 36 million people here, but I have a hard time believing 650 are stolen every year. Especially considering how big of news it was when one gun was stolen from an officer in Calgary.

Sorry, it wasn't 650 a year, a FOI request was done a few years back and showed that in a span of a couple years, 428 firearms were stolen or reported missing from police and other agency arsenals in Canada.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...1-1d158cb338df

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Sorry, it wasn't 650 a year, a FOI request was done a few years back and showed that in a span of a couple years, 428 firearms were stolen or reported missing from police and other agency arsenals in Canada.

That's still a very surprising and shocking number of firearms being lost by the police. I'd be very interested to see how that compares to firearms stolen from private owners.

More so, I'd be very interested in hearing what happens to the police members whom they are being lost/stolen from.

[GreenLantern2814]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/us/col...ing/index.html

3 more people murdered today in Colorado. Suspect killed in subsequent shootout with police.

Am I wrong or does Colorado have a disproportionate number of mass shootings?

[driveway]

You're wrong. This is the first mass-shooting of 2015 in the state of Colorado. There have been 344 mass-shootings thus far in 2015 in the United States.

There was also only 1 mass shooting in Colorado in 2014 (out of 336 nationally), and 4 of 363 mass shootings in 2013 were in Colorado.

Source:
http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

shootingtracker defines a mass shooting as "four or more people are shot [not necessarily killed] in a spree or setting, likely without a cooling off period. This may include the gunman himself ... or police shootings of civilians around the gunman."

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by driveway

You're wrong. This is the first mass-shooting of 2015 in the state of Colorado. There have been 344 mass-shootings thus far in 2015 in the United States.

Source:
http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

shootingtracker defines a mass shooting as "four or more people are shot [not necessarily killed] in a spree or setting, likely without a cooling off period. This may include the gunman himself ... or police shootings of civilians around the gunman."

That's so ####ed up.

[ernie]

Something from 538 on gun violence

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...-gun-violence/

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by driveway

You're wrong. This is the first mass-shooting of 2015 in the state of Colorado. There have been 344 mass-shootings thus far in 2015 in the United States.

There was also only 1 mass shooting in Colorado in 2014 (out of 336 nationally), and 4 of 363 mass shootings in 2013 were in Colorado.

Source:
http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

shootingtracker defines a mass shooting as "four or more people are shot [not necessarily killed] in a spree or setting, likely without a cooling off period. This may include the gunman himself ... or police shootings of civilians around the gunman."

Shooing tracker has a grossly broad definition and results in a skewed set of data. If you compare the federal data, using the federal definition, there were 25 in 2013. That's compared to 363 as reported by shooting tracker.

I'm sure most people would agree that federal statistics and definitions should take precedence over a crowd sourced site that has decided on their own definition.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Shooing tracker has a grossly broad definition and results in a skewed set of data. If you compare the federal data, using the federal definition, there were 25 in 2013. That's compared to 363 as reported by shooting tracker.

I'm sure most people would agree that federal statistics and definitions should take precedence over a crowd sourced site that has decided on their own definition.

For my edification, can you please set out the criteria the US Gov't uses to define/track this data.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

For my edification, can you please set out the criteria the US Gov't uses to define/track this data.

The FBI says it has to be 4 or more people killed not including the shooter. It's a good arbitrary place to draw the line that completely ignores injuries because getting shot and surviving is a regular part of American life and not worth actually tracking.

A good read on shooting tracker.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/mass...enge-fbi-data/

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

The FBI says it has to be 4 or more people killed not including the shooter. It's a good arbitrary place to draw the line that completely ignores injuries because getting shot and surviving is a regular part of American life and not worth actually tracking.

A good read on shooting tracker.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/mass...enge-fbi-data/

I was just reading that story.

The FBI definition is ridiculous, and I would question why an individual would hide behind that definition?