Canadian Parliament attacked. Watch for gun control coming to an area near you.

[T. O'Heir]

"...the guard at the memorial..." No ammo in the weapons carried by the 3d U.S. Infantry Regiment either. They're called ceremonial for a reason. Ditto for Cpl Cirillo at our National War Memorial.
The Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons is also a ceremonial position. Patronage appointment for a retired RCMP Chief Superintendent. Not legally entitled to carry a firearm, even as a retired cop.

 

[Tom Servo]

I wonder if the idea that his attack was limited because of the gun's capacity will enter into the debate of limiting higher capacity magazine availability and AR/AK type guns?

Hard to say. The antis have been quiet about this one. If they don't have rhetorical leverage, they'll probably just let this one go by. It doesn't fit the narrative.

 

[rock185]

T. O'Heir, Thanks for the info. I had wondered if the Sgt.-at-Arms was actually trusted enough to be allowed to be armed. One of my fellow students at Gunsite years ago was a Canadian. He explained to me what was required for him to own JUST ONE Colt .45 ACP pistol. WOW! He even gave me a Canadian pamphlet on gun control. I still have it around here someplace.

I admit that I was surprised that the Sgt-at-Arms was trusted to actually have a weapon with live ammo, and that he was able to get to wherever it was locked up, return, and successfully employ his pistol.

BTW, I just read about one of the Queen's security people being arrested for having ammo in his locker, I think it was. Thought it interesting he was trusted to protect the Royals, but not trusted, or allowed, to have ammo in his locker or wherever. Comments?

 

[wogpotter]

Its been that way for ever in the U.K.

Remember the infamous Princess Anne's bodyguard's jammed PPK? It was determined to be bad ammo that had been loaded into & stripped from a magazine every time the guard went on/off duty, a total of hundreds of times IIRC.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I understand that ceremonial guards are unarmed. But doesn't a military uniform make someone a target for a nut job.

Several years ago there was a shooting in a restaurant in Carson City. The gunman targeted National Guardsmen that were in there eating. They were in uniform and they were unarmed. Again, whacko attacks unarmed soldiers.

Maybe something should be changed?

I am not sure what you are suggesting. The military doesn't even allow the soldiers on base to be routinely armed either.

As for being targets of whackos, there is no evidence that this is a significant issue per se, anymore so than for any other group. You could make that sort of claim about just about any trait.

 

[carguychris]

There has been rampant theorizing in the Canadian press that terrorists may be targeting Canadian servicemen, but AFAIK there's no hard evidence that this is the case. All of the official statements paint Zehaf-Bibeau as a lone crackpot, despite the (admittedly arguable) fact that the Conservative government supports a position that organized terrorist groups are a dire threat to Canada and must be opposed with force; witness PM Harper's haste in labeling this as a terror attack, before it was even clear who the shooter was.

I stand by my Suicide by Cop theory. Actually, I surmise that Zehaf-Bibeau may not have realized that the guards at the War Memorial did not have loaded weapons; perhaps he thought he might die in a hail of gunfire right there.

 

[44 AMP]

"Terrorist" is a much overused word today.

A murderer kills for pleasure, or personal profit. A terrorist kills to force some political or social change.

If there is no stated reason for the attack, no one claiming it was done "because" or this or that reason, even though the attack may generate terror, I don't see it valid to call it a terrorist act.

It is also possible that a valid "terrorist" may not be acting in concert with a group.

The fact that this guy was a convert to Isam makes some things much more likely, but doesn't alone make them fact.

Soldiers, Police, Politicians, Judges, civil servants, etc. are all representatives of government. in the eyes of most, attacking them is attacking the government, and attacks against government, either because of what it is, or what it is doing are today called "terrorist acts". Earlier generations called them "revolutionaries", or just crazies, wackos and nutjobs.

It is entirely possible that fellow went off to battle what he saw as "the Great Satan" with a stolen deer rifle (and apparently no extra ammo), never intending to come back. We'll never know for certain unless we find something he left behind saying so.

Unless something like that turns up, speculation, while entertaining, is essentially pointless.