Canada Terrorism

After the shooting today, Canada went into
DefCon 3 in the parliament. As per their
training, this meant piling chairs in front
of the door. Do they know it's not 1896
anymore? And why wasn't the guard armed,
what good is an unarmed guard. In the
US many private security guards are armed,
let alone military guards. Otherwise what's the point.

Quote: Evenbob

After the shooting today, Canada went into
DefCon 3 in the parliament. As per their
training, this meant piling chairs in front
of the door. Do they know it's not 1896
anymore? And why wasn't the guard armed,
what good is an unarmed guard. In the
US many private security guards are armed,
let alone military guards. Otherwise what's the point.

I heard about this story and offer my support to those in Canada.

However, at the same time I wonder how it happened what with there are laws against guns and all......

The shooter just had an old hunting rifle which are not really restricted in Canada once you have a hunting license. Hand guns and automatic weapons are much more restricted.

It is rather interesting that the shooter was shot in the parliament building by the Sergeant at Arms. This is mostly a ceremonial position. He carries the mace into the chambers and the only visible weapon he carries is a sword. He received a long standing ovation from the members of parliament when it resumed today.

The shooter walked right by the barricaded door. The people in the room are mostly members of parliament holding a caucus meeting.

Quote: kenarman

The shooter just had an old hunting rifle which are not really restricted in Canada once you have a hunting license. Hand guns and automatic weapons are much more restricted.

It is rather interesting that the shooter was shot in the parliament building by the Sergeant at Arms. This is mostly a ceremonial position. He carries the mace into the chambers and the only visible weapon he carries is a sword. He received a long standing ovation from the members of parliament when it resumed today.

The shooter walked right by the barricaded door. The people in the room are mostly members of parliament holding a caucus meeting.

The Seargeant-at-Arms also runs the security detail at the parliament, and also managed the upkeep of the buildings... he runs a large team of around 1000., I've heard.

Long guns are legal pretty much in Canada. Hand guns, not so much. I expect (and hope) the only change is that the guard at the war memorial gets to have a loaded gun in the future.

I fear a knee-jerk reaction by Harper.

I love it. The sargent at arms grabs his gun,
walks out and calmly shoots the guy, goes
back to his office and that's that. He pulls
a John Wayne, literally, and gets a 5min
standing ovation from one of the most
restrictive gun control govt's in the world.

Yeah, really easy to hate guns until you
need one, then it's a damn handy thing
to have lying around.

Quote: Evenbob

I love it. The sargent at arms grabs his gun,
walks out and calmly shoots the guy, goes
back to his office and that's that. He pulls
a John Wayne, literally, and gets a 5min
standing ovation from one of the most
restrictive gun control govt's in the world.

1) Long guns are hardly restricted up here, so not sure Canada is the most restrictive on guns in the world.

2) He's effectively a police officer/RCMP member. Always have been allowed to wear guns.

3) I've passed on your email address to the RCMP so they can contact you on how to respond in future, as you have all the answers it seems.

Quote: TheCesspit

) He's effectively a police officer/RCMP member. Always have been allowed to wear guns.
.

And that's exactly the point. When a gun
was needed, he had one. Not really hard
to understand. The NRA is applauding what
he did, it's what they've been saying since
they started.

Quote: TheCesspit

3) I've passed on your email address to the RCMP so they can contact you on how to respond in future, as you have all the answers it seems.

You shouldn't get upset. People will play to type. On one side, any shooting is proof that gun laws are too permissive and we must ban all guns. On the other side, any shooting is proof that gun laws are too restrictive and we must force everyone to carry a gun.

What? No one really advocates that? Well, of course not. But each side claims the other side does.

I'm writing my congressman to remove all restrictions on convicted felons buying guns, because of the claim criminals already have weapons by many NRA supporters.

Why, if they have weapons, are we wasting our time and effort screening for felons?

Quote: TheCesspit

The Seargeant-at-Arms also runs the security detail at the parliament, and also managed the upkeep of the buildings... he runs a large team of around 1000., I've heard.

As per yahoo news. "According to the Government of Canada, the Sergeant-at-Arms is a largely ceremonial position that, among other administrative duties, “is one of the officers who may administer the oath of allegiance to newly elected Members (of Parliament).”

All stories I have read or heard on media call him a retired RCMP officer. Still wonder if he had gun on him or had to borrow one his ceremonial dress which is all you usually see has a sword.

Maybe he could have clubbed him witht he Mace ;-)