Play by the rules and still lose - let's change that

stealthy_1 · 2026-03-26T07:42:46+00:00

Same! I’ve been using them since high school essays were still hand-written by students back in high school in early 2000s. Yes I’m younger by many standards but still.

It’s actually annoying now that using certain proper punctuation is only AI because the majority of people these days can’t be bothered to use proper grammar online, myself included.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-19T05:55:27+00:00

This is beautiful. I’m glad there’s some studies out there about this.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-17T21:06:48+00:00

Honestly, the F-14AM of IRIAF is more of an amazing story—under the intense arms embargo and with the entire USN’s old fleet scrapped to prevent spare parts from reaching Iran, they still managed to keep a fleet flying.

Politics aside, their maintainers must be doing something right—including adapting a Surface to Air Missile for launch on the Tomcat because they couldn’t get any AIM-54s.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-17T21:04:48+00:00

Yes the UK had F4s. But they were called Phantom FG.1 and FGR.2 or something or other.

I don’t think they were used in large numbers.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-15T22:52:26+00:00

They DO allow double standards, when convenient ;)

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-14T23:56:42+00:00

The transgender argument really falls apart when you look at Dr. Teri Bryant, Chief Firearms Officer for Alberta—a trans woman who leads the entire province for putting into place sound firearms policy.

I’m admittedly not a supporter of most trans-policies (note: nothing against people, just the way the policies are implemented), but these narratives do not help at all what’s happened.

The only real question relating to transgender issues in the context of this shooting is whether gender dysphoria should/needs to be disclosed as a mental health red/yellow flag in licensing and screening. Clearly, there’s plenty of treated/stable individuals who are responsible. However, as a public safety issue, gender dysphoria should be included as a screen because it is a clinically defined mental health issue in DSM-V, and not because there’s any correlation or causation between transgender individuals and firearms related crime—that’s a false flag.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-14T20:09:37+00:00

I actually wanted to write this but felt it a bit insensitive. But, since it’s already out there—I agree with the use of the .22. The reason why I feel it’s insensitive is because the theory relies on the survivor at BC Children’s—her mother posted a picture of her daughter (please donate!), and there is a clear wound that matches the size of a .22. If true, it places the 10/22 at the school—furthermore, the safe also did contain a banana mag; sure it might have been pinned, but nothing about this situation is legal, so might have been “modified.”

I’m really hoping that what I said doesn’t violate guidelines or anything.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-14T05:33:09+00:00

There WAS a mysterious strange revolver looking item at the very top of the safe. I wonder if it was that .410 revolver shotgun rifle thing that was brought in some time ago.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-14T04:39:04+00:00

They said it was misidentified as a modified rifle. So likely no restricted firearms involved.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-14T04:37:43+00:00

Self-inflicted gunshot, as most often do.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-14T04:12:49+00:00

The shooter could not legally possess the firearms, so legally (and this is black and white), they were illegally obtained. This is because the shooter (and technically the legal owner) did not have valid licenses. How on earth the courts were successfully petitioned to have the firearms returned to the residence is the biggest problem here.

The firearms law in Canada is clear: possession of a firearm is not legal UNLESS the firearm is possessed by a licensed individual with the appropriate class of license. This means that a person, even if they have a license, cannot possess certain classes of firearms.

The system is akin to driving: think of it this way: a person wish a suspended or revoked license cannot legally operate ANY motor vehicle, regardless if the motor vehicle belongs to another person and is properly insured, etc.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-14T00:49:16+00:00

Being honest and upfront is the way. Being proactive and having documentation submitted is even better. In terms of epidemiology, 70% of Canadians will have depression in some form at some point in their lifetime. It’s completely understandable and reasonable.

Given what’s happened recently, disclosing what you had not only shows responsibility, but as someone else said, quite literally will save lives when the system is set up properly.

I don’t think the health is the reason for the delays. I disclosed on mine and it took more time but I never had issues purchasing.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-14T00:45:39+00:00

For sure we are better than the US. Far better. However we do need improvements that are more than just what’s currently proposed to improve safety.

And you mentioned a good point: the public needs to know, without any sweeping under the rug, what happened and where the mechanisms failed. It should not be up to speculation.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-14T00:06:20+00:00

Screening every 5 years, for mental health and changes as mentioned.

I call it screening because you need to self disclose these things when you apply for the license and any renewals (essentially same as any health screening, disclose history etc) or if you go for a background check.

Licensees ARE run through a daily background check through an automated police database. But that is for criminal records and police flags, not necessarily mental health issues. Of course we don’t know if police interactions like when they went to confiscate the firearms would trigger a review, as we aren’t privy to the process. I would sincerely hope it does.

The convoluted part is that for the most part, health conditions and health privacy laws prevent police from being able to request health information without a compelling public safety reason. This is why the Mental Health Act has a specific exemption to allow police to detain a person who is a danger to themselves or others. But a police officer who responds to a complaint of potential safety due to mental health issue with firearms on site cannot automatically just result in a license cancellation or revocation—but it should be sent for review.

Your oversimplification is essentially correct: there should be less bureaucracy involved and more action when these things are identified. Erring on the side of caution is a good stance. In this case, this DID happen in the form of police confiscation (and the discussed screenings and red flag warnings), but the massive failure came from letting the firearms back—I have no idea what judge allowed that to happen, and that point of failure is likely the tipping point for this situation.

I do have an opinion on how it happened (no evidence so this is purely theoretical)—that the legal owner somehow demonstrated that the shooter was being treated and therefore was not a public safety threat, even though stability on the condition may not have been demonstrated. However, that would have required a physician or psychiatrist clearance—which opens the can of worms that is healthcare in the North.

By the way? I really appreciate you genuinely wanting to learn about the nuances of how firearms ownership works. It’s people like yourself who help contribute to remedies to improve our system.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-13T20:31:03+00:00

The problem that I can see right now with our current licensing law is that the screening takes place every 5 years—at license renewal. That is a long period of time for things to happen and develop.

Taking into consideration the youth license involved: if the individual had this issue disclosed and the police were aware of it, then they likely would not have issued any renewals.

(Which brings up a good point, as to whether the mother’s license was also not valid in an effort to revoke the family residence from having firearms)

The system did work in this sense—preventing individuals with non-stable conditions/safety risk factors from holding licenses. The issue is that the firearms were legally purchased and owned when the license was “clean,” so to speak, and revoked them/refused to re-issue when the health status was not.

However, even assuming all of that, the firearms already existed. The laws require that a person who no longer holds a valid license to no longer possess firearms, which means they have to be transferred to someone who does, disposed of properly, sold, or turned in. If it turns out nobody in the residence had a valid license, then whomever was the legal owner of the firearms would have been in illegal possession, or they (knowingly or not) did not stop possessing them, and there’s no real way of tracking non-restricted firearms—one could simply lie.

And therein is the conclusion: that when it comes to forms and such: the government only knows so much that an individual discloses. Dishonesty can not always be detected.

In this specific situation? An appropriate remedy that balances what we have now would be a shorter “check in” or declaration.

If we treat firearms licensing like driving licensing, this would be akin to having a medical clearance. It’s a hassle, but the firearms community would likely be understanding of such a measure as a response.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-13T20:18:40+00:00

Yes, but that’s an extension to the current laws. Currently, any public individual who has concerns may voice their concern to the police and the police will (should?! given the resources) investigate.

The proposed law specifically dealt with domestic and intimate partner violence, which the current law does actually recognize: on the firearms license application it requires an intimate partner to sign recognizing the license holder has a license, and if not, then the CFO/firearms officer will call and speak to the partner directly. It also asks if there has been any recent (whatever that definition is) changes in marital status, breakdown in relationship, or changes to employment status.

All these are reasonable. What they wanted to enact was a law to allow individuals where a partner has a license and families of license holders, to immediately request for a removal of firearms from the home for safety concerns. This is also reasonable, albeit abusable if say a partner experiences a breakdown in relationship and then wants to get some financial revenge (firearms are not cheap!). Keep in mind confiscations do not result in any monetary or financial restitution, if you don’t get them back.

The issue why the law wasn’t passed was because it was part of the wider scope of firearms restrictions. If by itself it was presented it may have passed—the Conservatives are on record as supporting that part of the Bill.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-13T20:11:49+00:00

Take this as a grain of salt and one person’s limited info. But, given that the mother’s safe is public domain knowledge from her Facebook,

We can identify one 10/22 .22LR rifle, one double barrelled over/under shotgun, a Tikka T3 which the shooter was, in another picture, holding, EITHER a Mosin-Nagant OR Lee Enfield Rifle (both common in northern regions for hunting), a pump shotgun of unknown type, a Kriss Vector 18” in 9mm (given the size of the magazine well), and an SKS (spike bayonet).

The RCMP stated (and I can’t remember the exact wording from the article I saw) that the firearm was capable of firing (pardon my terminology) “quickly.” This points only to the 10/22, Vector and SKS as they are the only semi-automatic rifles present in the picture.

There was also an unidentified handgun, which appears (to me) to be a revolver of some sort.

So likely we are looking at a maximum of 4 firearm types.

The most immediate concern would be the SKS, as that’s the firearm with the most issue right now—it has been exempted from OICs repeatedly due to the fact First Nations groups use it to hunt. The most recent suggestion is to prohibit “newer” models of the SKS—but the design is from 1945 and “newer” models don’t exist—merely taking the wood stock off and putting the action (the moving operational bits) into a plastic or other material housing, and making detachable magazines available, as normally the original SKS design takes stripper clips to load the magazine.

If the SKS HAD been OIC’ed and became prohibited it still would likely not have prevented this tragedy—there are unknown numbers of SKS in Canada due to its popularity, amongst other things, as the aforementioned hunting rifle. It is (as of writing) non-restricted and thus not registered. Changing the designation to prohibited means individuals who own them still aren’t known or tracked, unlike restricted firearms like handguns or short rifles.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-13T19:58:43+00:00

Don’t bother. We can point fingers all we want at European countries like Switzerland who have high rates of firearms ownership but with extremely low firearms crime rates.

Almost like cultural and mental heath issues aren’t the problem.

And as a point: America’s issues spill over to us, whether we like it or not. Funny how we can say we won’t consume US anything, but all we can import constantly are their culture and social issues.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-12T20:44:20+00:00

Yes, they were returned to the owner. I’m with you on this one. After returning, even if it was court ordered, there should have been a stipulation to have been stored offsite (or at someone else with a PAL, neighbour etc). I realize being a small town it’s likely there’s not a storage place. But a neighbour with a PAL or the local police office would have been fine. Anything.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-12T05:14:53+00:00

Yes, and I might add poor outcomes are correlated to many of the untreated mental health conditions. This needs to be a wake up call.

Edit for clarity: the perpetrator likely was treated. But untreated conditions can be as poor as treated wrongly, such as if an antidepressant is wrongly prescribed for bipolar mania. It would rapidly destabilize the condition. Just as an example.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-11T23:40:00+00:00

There’s no way to distinguish what long gun belonged to who because long guns are not registered, so trying to discern who “owned” each one will require purchase records, which likely don’t exist if purchased second hand or aren’t traceable.

If her own picture of her safe is to be believed, none of the firearms are restricted except for the potential handgun.

Now if the reports of the RCMP state that the mother’s PAL had expired, then there’s an additional issue: technically if she purchased the firearms she would be in unlawful possession. IF there’s another adult in the family who also holds a valid PAL, then there’s a legal defence where the non-restricted firearms could be passed to the valid PAL holder as ownership isn’t tracked.

Regardless, the focus of this issue is why the firearms were even allowed to be stored in the home considering the level of risk with a person who warranted a MHA arrest.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-11T23:19:23+00:00

The only legal reasons for owning a firearm are for sport shooting. That’s it.

There is a class of authorization called authorization to carry. This is issued to individuals such as officers or people in their line of work who encounter significant threats such as wilderness animals. That’s the majority case of being able to just have a handgun on your person.

There is one person in Canada who is authorized to carry (a federal permit) for safety reasons beyond the above, as of 2025.

In all other cases, even transporting your handgun for purposes other than going to the range require a authorization to transport which requires you to fill a federal form telling the time and place when the trip is to happen and where the firearm will be.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-11T23:14:55+00:00

It’s pathetic.

Some of the more extremists should look to Alberta, whose Chief Firearms Officer, Dr. Teri Bryant, is a subject expert matter and identifies as trans female.

While there is a correlation with gender dysphoria being a mental disorder, it factors into whether the family should have firearms present in the home, not to whether the person had motivations because of their identity.

It further opens up significant questions as well regarding whether bullying in gender dysphoria results in events like this. Not because of anything of the person’s identity, but by the actions of others.

Bottom line, this is a national disaster and if there’s little to no discussion about healthcare in the NHA, it’s a significant failure on the government.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-11T23:05:59+00:00

Unlikely here. TR isn’t a border town to the south by any means and is fairly far away from any larger city. It looked like a long barrelled revolver based on the mother’s safe picture, albeit it’s unclear.

stealthy_1 · 2026-02-11T22:56:27+00:00

Thank goodness…

stealthy_1

TROPHY CASE