10 dead, including suspect, in mass shooting in Tumbler Ridge, B.C.

[CaptainCrunch]

I agree with this as we learn more and more, we saw the statement of the shooters biological father, it doesn't sound like the mother was exactly a stabilizing influence.


While this can get into a debate around firearms bannings, and that is a discussion that seems to happen, if these guns weren't the ones that were seized, then it goes to the argument that a determined shooter is going to find a way to get weapons, and our governments need to do a way better effort in terms of illegal firearms markets and smuggling. But we are in that point again of wondering how someone that seemed to be clearly mentally ill slipped through the cracks.


We can't look at the pictures of the young victims and hear the wrecked family and say "Gee we should do better", we have to do better, and at the end of this, there needs to be a open investigation in public and there has to be concrete steps taken from that investigation.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I agree with this as we learn more and more, we saw the statement of the shooters biological father, it doesn't sound like the mother was exactly a stabilizing influence.


While this can get into a debate around firearms bannings, and that is a discussion that seems to happen, if these guns weren't the ones that were seized, then it goes to the argument that a determined shooter is going to find a way to get weapons, and our governments need to do a way better effort in terms of illegal firearms markets and smuggling. But we are in that point again of wondering how someone that seemed to be clearly mentally ill slipped through the cracks.


We can't look at the pictures of the young victims and hear the wrecked family and say "Gee we should do better", we have to do better, and at the end of this, there needs to be a open investigation in public and there has to be concrete steps taken from that investigation.

Why not wait to see when more information is revealed?

Just because the guns were not licensed to the shooter doesn’t mean they have anything to do with smuggling/illegal firearms markets.

Agree that things like this expose areas of improvement, but they should probably focus on what’s known, not guesses over things they may not be related.

[Titan2]

All of Captain's points are valid regardless of what happened in this case. At the end of the day, it is about what a society values and is willing to put its money behind. Unfortunately, so far, we have not made great choices.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I agree with this as we learn more and more, we saw the statement of the shooters biological father, it doesn't sound like the mother was exactly a stabilizing influence.


While this can get into a debate around firearms bannings, and that is a discussion that seems to happen, if these guns weren't the ones that were seized, then it goes to the argument that a determined shooter is going to find a way to get weapons, and our governments need to do a way better effort in terms of illegal firearms markets and smuggling. But we are in that point again of wondering how someone that seemed to be clearly mentally ill slipped through the cracks.


We can't look at the pictures of the young victims and hear the wrecked family and say "Gee we should do better", we have to do better, and at the end of this, there needs to be a open investigation in public and there has to be concrete steps taken from that investigation.

I thought that statement from the father kind of stank of "don't blame me". As for the guns, unless they were different, we know that they were removed from the house but the owner petitioned to have them returned. I've heard nothing about illegal guns.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I thought that statement from the father kind of stank of "don't blame me". As for the guns, unless they were different, we know that they were removed from the house but the owner petitioned to have them returned. I've heard nothing about illegal guns.

I agree about the statement from the father. He should have just issued the part about his condolences and left it at that. Sounds very much like "don't blame me" and "it's the mother's fault." And that both doesn't help and makes him look bad. If he got legal advice for that statement, he needs a new lawyer.

[Doctorfever]

https://nationalpost.com/news/tumble...d-e9e2bb6086b0

Tumbler Ridge shooting survivor Maya Gebala is moving quite a bit on her left side, but not on her right, according to her mom.

Maya, 12, is credited with trying to lock a library door within Tumbler Ridge Secondary as the killer approached. The door lock, however, was broken. Five people died inside the library and another person in a stairwell.

Maya hid under a desk but was shot three times. One bullet grazed her cheek and ear, while the second and third bullets hit her in the head and neck.

Edmonds said Maya’s eyes are not reacting to light, suggesting she may not be able to see.

There’s significant damage to the left side of her brain, “where the bullet entered and exited, it tore right through,” Edmonds wrote.

“Because of the damage and swelling surrounding it, it is hard to say how much response and deliberate function she will be able to regain. However, we are hopeful. She has been cleared for a feeding tube and is (thankfully) not considered to pass in the immediate future.

What a brave girl, trying to lock the door that could have saved other children from being shot.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But we are in that point again of wondering how someone that seemed to be clearly mentally ill slipped through the cracks.

There is no wondering. Our system deliberately prevents intervention for mental health sufferers unless that person has committed a crime of a serious nature harming others. Police spoke about having mental health related calls to the house, because they did everything they could already with the current system. They knew this could have occured.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/artic...y-mass-killer/

The court said de Grood’s treatment remains heavily reliant on a regular dosage of the anti-psychotic drug Olanzapine.

“If the appellant stopped taking it, a deterioration in his mental state could be expected, and if the appellant stopped taking his medication generally, the chances of a relapse within the first year would be 50 per cent or greater,” the court said.

“We are not satisfied the board’s statement represented a mischaracterization of the importance of Olanzapine on the evidence as a whole.”

In de Grood's case, he is required to take supervised medication and cannot be left out of jail without significant risk of deterioration. And for good reason.

Yet for someone who has not committed mass murder, there is no such intervention.

Even for someone who has committed one gruesome murder, Vince Li was allowed free with full discharge without medical supervision. It's just a roll of the die if it happens again.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/vinc...arge-1.3979861


So when even serious offenders get full discharges without medical supervision, why do we expect intervention to those who have not committed crimes yet?


This is why we enable mental health victims who self medicate through narcotics by offering safe injection sites instead of proper mental health care. This helps us cope rather than force something on someone against their own will.

That's why Jesse Van Rootselaar made headlines for a mass murder, versus being a non-story with properly treated mental health care intervention. This is our society's socially acceptable outcome, except when it blows up like it did where we try to find answers for events which we have already socially accepted as a risk.

Our mentality towards mental health is completely broken, and I've spoken at length about it. This won't be the first or the last mental health related murders. If it wasn't guns, it would have been knives. Guns just make it easier.

[Fuzz]

Ya, if government wanted to do one thing to improve safety, community, and society in general it would be to acknowledge mental health is easily as important as physical health, and begin to setup a system that recognizes that reality. It's yet another area where we decided if you are well employed and have benefits, you have reasonable access. For anyone else, it's expensive or inaccessible. We've let insurance companies decide how much is enough.


This can't be done instantly, but we need to do something different. It won't be free, but it will also lead to saving elsewhere, and pay massive dividends long term. So many mental health struggles lead to physical health problems, impact employment and productivity, violence, and costs to manage these things. We are failing, it's time to recognize that. Do any countries do this really well?

[opendoor]

The problem is you can't easily predict which people who struggle with mental health issues are going to be violent and which aren't, and you can't place strict conditions on everyone. Something like 20% of police interactions are with someone with a mental health disorder, which represents over 1 million Canadians each year.

And obviously, as long as people want low taxes, robust mental health care in a town of 2,000 that's hours away from any population center of note is basically impossible. Unless this person could have been committed against their will long-term (which seems unlikely given that they seemingly didn't actually commit any crimes prior to the murders), what's the answer? I'd be all for increasing spending on mental health, but good luck getting elected if you say you're going to raise taxes to pay for it.

In light of that, public safety relies mostly on individual responsibility and on minimizing these peoples' ability to do harm when they choose to do so, which was severely lacking in this case. The killer was a teen with mental health issues who didn't attend school after the age of 14, who had unrestricted access to the internet where they repeatedly interacted with violent and radicalizing content (including reposting videos from another mass shooter), and who had easy access to firearms in their house. That last point is key; if they didn't have easy access to guns, we wouldn't even be talking about this. Sure, they may have killed someone with a knife, but no reasonable person can credibly believe that the public risk isn't massively higher with guns than with knives.

[Fuzz]

Every school should have a full time mental health professional. At minimum, from there they can do management and assignment of virtual experts, or various tools, depending on need. Do we even teach kids anything about mental health in schools?


We also need to stop listening and electing the people who's only interest in life is reducing taxes they pay.

[CliffFletcher]

Removing guns from the homes of anyone with documented mental health issues would have unintended consquences. Many people are already reluctant to reach out over mental health. They may be even more reluctant if seeking professional help could result in their guns being taken away.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Removing guns from the homes of anyone with documented mental health issues would have unintended consquences. Many people are already reluctant to reach out over mental health. They may be even more reluctant if seeking professional help could result in their guns being taken away.

Or their livelihood in some cases.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Removing guns from the homes of anyone with documented mental health issues would have unintended consquences. Many people are already reluctant to reach out over mental health. They may be even more reluctant if seeking professional help could result in their guns being taken away.

This also happened in a rural area. Taking guns away from people in rural areas either puts them in danger or forces them to move. As far as I know, there isn't a country in the world (except for maybe China) that bans guns for those living in rural areas. Northern BC is one of the more dangerous areas in the world to live in, in terms of dangerous wildlife, mostly due to the massive grey wolf population.

They probably should have taken away all the handguns though.

[SutterBrother]

Originally Posted by blankall

Northern BC is one of the more dangerous areas in the world to live in, in terms of dangerous wildlife, mostly due to the massive grey wolf population.

What?

There have been a total of 2 wolf attacks in BC in the last 26 years, neither fatal, both the result of human habituation.

2020

Sorry, need to know what you're talking about there, or where you are getting this info?

[powderjunkie]

IIRC there have been like 2 confirmed fatal wolf attacks in North America in the last 100 years.

For a number of reasons bear spray is generally the best first line of defence for most wildlife encounters

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

IIRC there have been like 2 confirmed fatal wolf attacks in North America in the last 100 years.

For a number of reasons bear spray is generally the best first line of defence for most wildlife encounters

Rusic alone is responsible for that number being half what it could be!

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by blankall

This also happened in a rural area. Taking guns away from people in rural areas either puts them in danger or forces them to move. As far as I know, there isn't a country in the world (except for maybe China) that bans guns for those living in rural areas. Northern BC is one of the more dangerous areas in the world to live in, in terms of dangerous wildlife, mostly due to the massive grey wolf population.

What absolute BS is this, lol. Northern BC and northern Alberta have massive bear/Wolf populations and very, very few attacks. Wolf attacks in general are extremely rare, let alone the fatal ones. Are you getting this info from the same place you get all your terrible, misinformed political info?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Rusic alone is responsible for that number being half what it could be!

Ban Rusic

[woob]

I think if an individual has multiple documented incidents of police coming to the residence for mental health and/or gun related incidents, you and anyone in that house no longer get to keep guns. It may not matter in incidents like this, as if determined they could seek guns elsewhere, but it seems like a no brainer to me.

[Engine09]

But they need guns to protect against wild moose!!!!!! Always a f'ing excuse.

I grew up in the north, never had a gun in our house. When I was born my Dad cleared out all the rifles, got rid of them, he didn't think it was a good idea to have guns around little kids. Ammo stored separately, guns locked up, didn't matter, he just got rid of them.

In all my time canoeing, hiking, fishing and quadding I never needed a gun once and I'm talking decades. I was 100km away of the nearest town and the only thing north of me was the NorthWest Territories. I took a friend's .22 a few times but it was more of a pain in the ass to carry than anything. I've gone target shooting many times with larger rifles and even an illegal handgun, used shotguns, etc. It's not that fun, not worth having little children shot and killed.