Recent tragic events in Canada, specifically the deadliest school shooting in decades, have driven a significant surge in search interest for the keyword “Canada shooting.” This incident, which involved the deaths of six children, a school educator, and family members of the suspect in Tumbler Ridge, B.C., is garnering extensive media coverage and public attention, leading to over 100K searches.
The reported shooting in northern Canada has also contributed to heightened interest, as officials have confirmed two fatalities but stated that there is no active threat. This alarming situation, following the mass shooting at the school, has captured national and international media focus, prompting people to search for the latest updates and details surrounding these violent incidents.
The combination of multiple fatalities in different locations, especially within the context of a school environment, has resulted in a collective shock and a pressing need for information. As news outlets like ABC News and CBC report ongoing developments, many individuals are seeking clarity and updates on the situation, leading to increased online searches related to these tragic events in Canada.
Watch the Moment
Internet Reacts
M
The shooter has been confirmed as being transgender. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/livestory/active-shooter-alert-tumbler-ridge-secondary-school-bc-live-updates-9.7083740 A strong reminder that any anti-human comments will not be tolerated. Ban hammers are out. We have a lot of grieving families out there so let’s be kind and supportive.
C
I’m not speculating. I’m only sticking to what’s been reported or verified: police were called to the residence multiple times for mental health related incidents, and firearms were seized. What I don’t understand is how that fits with the PAL process. Doesn’t it consider who you live with, including household members with a documented history of serious mental health issues? That’s why I’m confused.
P
No the Firearms Act doesn’t care about who you live with. The only such restriction is that if you are in a relationship your spouse must approve your PAL application. Family members that live with you are irrelevant. It’s your responsibility to secure your firearms so they cannot be used by other members of the household that do not hold a license.
K
> No the Firearms Act doesn’t care about who you live with. It does, actually. The CFO can place conditions on your license that guns must be stored somewhere other than your residence if, for example, someone living there has a firearms prohibition order, or if your spouse disagrees with allowing guns in the house. If an individual in the house is having a mental health crisis, especially who reportedly had a minor’s license at some point so the CFO would likely have been made aware of their mental health crisis, the CFO can absolutely demand that you have your guns stored elsewhere. The fact that the guns were seized once points to this possibility, but why they were given back is the big question.
H
We don’t even know when those guns were seized. For all we know that could’ve happened during the last visit of the police to the premises nine months ago.
L
It does if a judge gives a person a weapons ban.
–
So who was the owner of the guns? Why were they returned to that residence when there was clear red flag?
C
There was a very similar incident here in Plymouth, in the UK. Firearms got removed by the police after an assault allegation, and then given back a month before he went on and did a mass shooting.
D
Also recent mass shooting in Auatralia.
E
That was a religious motivated shooting and shooters had never had guns removed from them before?
J
Most likely the mothers. They were returned to the mother most likely because the mother herself did not pose a threat to public safety.
M
Likely Jennifer Strang the mother of the shooter. She has posts on her Facebook of a full gun safe. Posts that reference her son (her words) and his YouTube channel focused on guns and survival type content. It is incredibly hard to access good and consistent mental health care for your children/teens, and parents are up against endless online communities fostering very dark and twisted ideologies. This is a sickening tragedy on many levels. The rot that has infected America has now crept across our borders. I cannot bring myself to read of the victims or their families. This is a completely unnecessary tragedy and I don’t know how we get the wheels back on the bus. I do think we need to consider some very strict internet controls for kids under 16 like Australia has done.
E
Just fyi the internet ban in Aus hasn’t worked at all, – mum of a teen in Aus. I don’t know one teenager who lost access.
M
I really would love a world in which we don’t need to regulate social media, but by god is it a curse on youth. I can’t imagine if my most embarrassing moments/insecurities were spread as viral memes, literally the instant they happen. The way it cultivates cliqs? ugh man,
M
I think it starts with an unstable home life and that’s a common denominator in most of these cases
Q
There are so many studies on how social media affects kids and their mental health. I also agree that it sucks that we’ve come to this, but if social media won’t regulate itself we as a society need to regulate it.
A
I got curious and I’m looking at her FB profile as well. I see the photo of the gun safe talking about taking them out for some target practice. I don’t see any reference to her son’s youtube page. (ignoring any gender stuff here). I went back to 2023 and her FB feed looks relatively normal. I’m going to make a point of trying not to editorialize her FB feed. As a famous EMH once said, “We’ve had a targedy, let’s not compound it with ignorance”.
M
I’m wondering if that was removed somehow. When I clicked her link the YouTube video it was hyperlinked to was removed already. At any rate, I was not intending to misgender I was referencing how she had referred to her child at that point. I believe the post was from 2021.
A
Oh, I’m not saying you’re misgendering.
M
tbh some kids just shouldn’t have a phone or laptop. I did fine without a phone in the early 00s and even in the late 00s I only had a flip phone.
B
As a computer geek I dont agree with no laptop/PC. Granted I grew up during the MySpace era and a PC was purely for gaming and later, game developing. It fostered a love of PCs and programming that later had me getting a computer science degree. Never had an interest in social media.
S
>parents are up against endless online communities fostering very dark and twisted ideologies. >we need to consider some very strict internet controls for kids under 16 like Australia has done. Why not just not let your kids online? Parents can enforce that. Take the phone away, change the wifi password, etc. Maybe lock the phone in the safe.
A
omg, I looked up her FB and she has pictures of herself and Jesse as a child doing totally normal mother and child family things… Heartbreaking asf
Q
The shooter was 18, and their license to own firearms expired in 2024. The RCMP says the firearms used weren’t registered to the shooter, so I’m thinking they probably belonged to their mother or sibling (who were killed in their family home). [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/livestory/active-shooter-alert-tumbler-ridge-secondary-school-bc-live-updates-9.7083740](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/livestory/active-shooter-alert-tumbler-ridge-secondary-school-bc-live-updates-9.7083740)
N
How does a person who was 18 in 2026 have a license to own firearms that expired 2 years ago? You cannot own firearms as a minor. You CAN have a minor’s license to borrow/use someone else’s firearms.
Q
The RCMP both stated that the shooter was 18, and that their license expired in 2024. I’m assuming they meant it was a minor’s license as you described, which can be obtained by people as young as 12. My point was that the shooter *was not* the owner of the guns that were removed, and later returned to, the home. Those would have belonged to someone living in the home that was at least 18 at the time of removal (so their mother or possibly an older sibling). Saying that their license *to own* firearms expired in 2024 was poor paraphrasing on my part, as in the article I linked to, the RCMP used the words firearms licence, not licence to own firearms.
C
Idk if it changed since I got it but I got my pal at 14 I could buy a gun just not ammo without someone over 18 that was also a pal holder
N
I’m reading that the police responded to multiple mental health crises involving the shooter in the past, including removing firearms. This seems like a clear issue of failing to identify a dangerous person and taking pre-emotive measures to address the mental health and to prevent a mentally-ill person from accessing firearms.
S
Sounds like a failure of policing.
B
It sounds like they had to return them as the person in question wasn’t the owner? I don’t know the specifics of the laws regarding this.
Q
The guns weren’t registered to the shooter. I’m assuming they belonged to one of the shooter’s parents or siblings. [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/livestory/active-shooter-alert-tumbler-ridge-secondary-school-bc-live-updates-9.7083740](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/livestory/active-shooter-alert-tumbler-ridge-secondary-school-bc-live-updates-9.7083740)
R
If it was a non restricted firearm it wouldn’t be registered to anyone.
T
If police took the guns and the owner petitioned (a court likely) to get them back, how is that a police failure?
G
It wouldn’t. Would it then be a failure on the gun owner’s part for not properly securing the firearms?
J
How do you know they weren’t properly stored? Also has it been confirmed that the firearms originally taken were the same ones used? If we are going to speculate, odds are that the firearms were only returned because the owner could prove that they were properly stored and still got stolen.
–
Seems like a running theme, last big shooting was wrapped in layers of RCMP enforcment failures
Q
The guns were removed by police and the owner petitioned the court to get them back. The court returned them, not the police.
O
Not an RCMP enforcement failure. They played no role in the guns being returned. They seized the guns in the first place. Sorry to say, but the guns being returned is not on the RCMP.
A
And yet they’re still going to try and spin this as a reason for gun control, when this is clearly an issue of that specific pal holder not following legal procedures and the RCMP for not taking the early issues seriously.
O
They seized the guns
P
Nova Scotia now this. How many people have to die before the RCMP sucks up its ego and gets put under the microscope?
O
Who returned the guns?
X
Why do that when we can just ban more guns? This should’ve been the reaction the first time, and with Myles Sanderson, though that was a knife. Incredibly well documented history of mental health or violence problems; put back into a position for horrible things to happen. Innocent people die. Horrible all around, but as with NS, I expect the RCMP has a ton of blame here.
C
Not a police decision to return the guns. It’s a court decision. They will have been taken on a section 117 seizure of the criminal code. A judge has decided they could have them back.
D
Sounds like pure speculation on your part in the absence of more details.
C
The kind of speculation the sub is cool with though.
M
Police were unable to press charges, unfortunately.
C
Sounds more like a parenting fail.
S
The report is that the police took the guns. The gun owner petitioned the court to get the back. Blame the gun owner for being incapable of securing the firearms.
I
Usually it’s a failure of the legal system. There are people who have hundreds of arrests, the police did their job hundreds of times, but they’re still free because our legal system is garbage and judges let repeat offenders go free all the time. The police can come out and do their job but they can’t keep these criminals away unfortunately.
Additional Sources:
ABC News – 2 dead in shooting in northern Canada, no active threat: Officials
