Jump to content

Talk:2014 Moncton shootings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Moncton shootings)

Comment

[edit]

Really, already on Wikipedia? This should be removed from Wikipedia until the events have completely unfolded. 156.34.52.85 (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this event will undoubtedly be recorded in history, I felt like this article was unjustified as encyclopedic material, especially considering how little details we have, but that is just an opinion. Whoever authored the article obviously felt otherwise. 207.219.69.196 (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC) (same poster as above)[reply]

Wikipedia has a long history of creating current event articles such as this; I'll lay odds there were already thousands of people searching for this article so far this morning because it's the kind of article that we're expected to have. There's little doubt this will be a noteworthy event. It actually worries me more that the title of the article isn't coming up on internal searches. Risker (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Risker: This won't make you or I any happier, if it's what's behind this: T68011 --j⚛e deckertalk 15:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting international attention. Just some examples:

http://www.businessinsider.com/justin-bourque-cop-killer-shooter-2014-6 http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/05/world/canada-shooting/ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27721569

This seems to be the kind of broad attention needed to establish having an article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting

[edit]

I added the start of the shooting (man carrying guns in the street). Also I added some information about whether it is legal to openly carry guns in Canada. Contrary to popular beleif it is perfectly legal, for a licensed firearms owner, to openly transport non-restricted firearms (i.e. long guns) provided that they are unloaded and no brandished in a threatening way. I think this is an important aspect of this incident because we do not yet know why he shot these Officers. A Canadian Toker 17:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs) PS I also added information about an incident where one of his friends described that he was previously irresponsible with his firearms (he was holding it while drinking alcohol). Whether or not anyone notified the police of a public safety concern will be an issue in the investigation of this case.A Canadian Toker 17:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on the news this morning that he had a very "disturbing" Facebook page, where he explained his creed that it is his right to take up arms for the right to bear arms. CatanOverlord (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't seen any broadcast coverage of this incident.. He can claim that, but Canadians have no right to bear arms. Its a US thing. Can't say much about what he posted beyond what I read on the online news (no access to facebook) A Canadian Toker 18:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)
Well Bourque has just shown that it definitely IS a Canadian thing. Leave the US out of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.208.167 (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
?? Having a 'right to bear arms' (i.e. US 2nd Amendment) is a US thing. Canadians have no constitutional right to possesses firearms. A Canadian Toker 15:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)
No constitutional right, sure. But one of his copy-paste slogans was "Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.” More of an ethical/philosophical thing than legal (see Gun politics in Canada for that). The very fact that he did the thing proves he was allowed, since he wasn't prevented. At least that's the perspective he seems to see it from. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open Carry in Canada - NFA Statement

[edit]

I have readded the following "Openly carrying non-restricted firearms in Canada is legal provided they are unloaded during transportation.[1]" It was removed from the shooting section by someone. This is valuable information as it speaks to the legal issue surrounding the initial 9-1-1 call and will be discussed in conjunction with the RCMP debrief

For example the following directly discusses the need to understand the original call: "Questions have already begun emerging about the tragic attack that killed constables Dave Ross, Fabrice Gevaudan and Douglas Larche and injured two others. ->What was the nature of the call? How many calls came in and was the true seriousness of the call evident to the members when they were dispatched to that location?" asked Glen Wood, who spent 35 years with the RCMP as a superintendent and criminal profiler." ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/moncton-rcmp-likely-to-face-difficult-questions-about-shooting-1.2667723 )

... Also I am going to readd mention of the NFA statement. It was deleted by somebody from the reactions page. The issue of gun control has been brought up by the NFA and others in relation to these shootings. Also the NFA statement has garnered news coverage of its own with anti-gun control and other gun organizations calling it potentially ill timed.

The original read "Gun rights advocate organization National Firearms Association released a statement criticizing the strict gun laws in Canada, saying, "The NFA deplores the terrible actions by a clearly deranged individual that led to these deaths and injuries. ...Incidents like these demonstrate the validity of the mounting evidence that none of Canada's firearms control efforts over the past 50 years have had any effect on preventing violence, or otherwise stopping bad people from carrying out their evil deeds."[1]"

I've added mention of the statement and reaction to it. Also the RCMP has started an online condolence book and place to donate to the families. I've added that under the twitter hashtag in the reactions section.

A Canadian Toker 15:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, ACT. This was removed because it is editorialization; it's not something that is mentioned in any reports of the shooting. I will removing it from where you re-added it. The NFA statement is relevant. Risker (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say I disagree. I think that statement is relevent considering its relation to the original call. That being said I'll leave it for now. A Canadian Toker 17:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)

Something to keep in mind is that there may be other applicable laws, including provincial and municipal ones, that could affect the situation - and that pulling this information together is really what we call original research or synthesis in the case of an article like this. The article is about the shootings, not about laws that control the manner in which firearms can be transported. Risker (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I get that. The question about provincial/municpal regs is valid and I have no answer to that. Cheers A Canadian Toker 14:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ Royal Canadian Mounted Police. "Storing, Transporting and Displaying Firearms". Retrieved 5 June 2014.

Weapon types

[edit]

There is now description of the weapons carried by Bourque, but those descriptions do not come from the cited reference sources. Please find a published source for this information, or it will have to be removed. Risker (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This says he had:
  • M-14 semi-automatic rifle (or possibly an M305)
  • Mossberg 500 SPX 6-shot pump-action shotgun
I will look for something more definitive. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC identifies it as M-305. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links. I was going off the info on the [1] link and it didn't say anything about it being a mossberg.. I'll undo my edits. Could someone please cite the articles that Kelapstick had^^ A Canadian Toker 17:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)

I have since updated the info box. A Canadian Toker (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anything about the crossbow and knife types?--Auric talk 23:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theories

[edit]

I was wondering - people are already calling this a "false flag attack". Would it be worthy of being mentioned here? There are allegations that it had something to do with an emergency preparedness drill being run in Sackville, NB a week earlier, although all activity during the drill was confined to Mount Allison University and a few surrounding streets. People are also claiming that the fact that Justin Bourque was taken to Sackville to be placed in custody means he's "obviously an actor". More detail can be found on sites like "Prison Planet" and "Godlike Productions".23.16.255.231 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More detail on false flag theories about every recent mass shooting can be found on those sites. It's simply what they do. That, and reptilians. Good for site traffic, but not for info. Not appropriate here, until a reliable source discusses the same.
Yes, much of what Wikipedia considers "reliable" is what the conspiracy theorists consider "reptilian propaganda", so there'll always be that problem. Luckily, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not absolute truth. Much simpler. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

is this here already somewhere?

[edit]

I don't see it but then my eyes ain't what they used to be. This line in the New York Times' account of the sentencing caught my eye; it's around Canadian blogspace but not apparently in the Canadian mainstream media:

In a videotaped statement to the police he said that he wanted to encourage people to rise up against the “soldiers” that defend federal institutions and protect the rich from the poor.

Seems to be to a necessary inclusion...and somewhat strange omission.Skookum1 (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of friend's name

[edit]

The man who has had his name used has suffered in its usage, and one less place of used can make a difference. Even though he is completely innocent, he has suffered the consequences of his name being used within media. He has been denied employment, and suffered social consequences that he did not deserve, as again, he did nothing. The usage of his name is not neccessary, and it is pointless and redundant. The article would be lacking nothing by his name being permemantly removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty1234fghj (talk • contribs) 22:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reposted the above from my User talk page, as it is more appropriate here. HGilbert (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2014 Moncton shootings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2014 Moncton shootings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 September 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move. Per WP:NCWWW. I have filed a technical request to move the article back to old name. (non-admin closure) A y d o h 8 ( t a l k ) 02:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– Vague titles; I propose to follow the style used by many articles in Category:Spree shootings in Canada, such as 2018 Toronto shooting and 2020 Nova Scotia attacks. 162 etc. (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we mention his real motive?

[edit]

some sources claim that in the year before the shooting a friend of his was slain by police. BadMombo1660 (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Moncton_shootings&oldid=1237480716"