There is simply no way, aside from erecting a police state, to prevent a lone gunman (or carman) from killing people who are out in public - like the ceremonial guard for a war memorial, or a couple of soldiers walking down the street - aside from not having such persons go out in public.
Likewise, the gunman broke into a building - where he was neutralized by security without harming anyone but security (which was unfortunate - they put themselves in harm’s way for us, the public).
I’m unwilling to see Canadians cowering in fear because of the slight risk these guys pose. That’s a bad way to honour those who put themselves in harm’s way on our behalf.
Kevin Vickers as quoted in the G&M column: “I told them that if they made me their sergeant-at-arms, there would be no walls built around Canada’s parliamentary buildings".
I like his attitude. Sure, it may be that a “just casually drop in” model for a parliament is no longer realistic but still, surely there are measures that can be taken short of a siege mentality.
As things stand, the security at places like the US Capitol makes it so such an assailant in DC may not enter far, but could shoot up a bunch of civilians lined up at the checkpoint before Capitol Police took him down. There’s always a trade-off.
I agree that it is very difficult to protect people out in public. But we knew soldiers were vulnerable and we didn’t do a damn thing for those two soldiers at the War Memorial. We didn’t arm them, they weren’t guarded, and they weren’t pulled from their posts. You say we can’t do everything or even very much. That’s true. But we did nothing. That’s simply wrong.
Yes, he was stopped but I’ve already described how the particulars of yesterday’s breach are unacceptable.
Properly defending against such occurrences is not an indication of cowering in fear. It’s called common sense. I find it almost bizarre that you would characterize the risk as “slight” given that this flaky, meagerly armed lunatic made it within tens of meters of a room full of people governing a developed, G8 nation.
So - no more ceremonial guards - unless they are armed and guarded in turn? No more army personnel walking in public?
Who is going to guard all these guards?
To me, this is a curious over-reaction. Some nut has a beef with our society and takes aim at our beloved institutions and ceremonies - and our response ought to be, to cease carrying them out?
I say - the hell with that. That’s letting the nuts rule us with fear, and I want none of it.
The risk to any particular Canadian, or any particular institution, is “slight”. In point of fact, few such attacks have occurred to date, and the numbers of persons harmed have been low.
Yesterday is proof that not enough has been done, yet people here are talking like it’s par for the course.
Like getting through the guards at the door, penetrating into the interior of the building and within a stone’s throw of the people governing the country, only to get popped by the Sergeant-At-Arms after he went back to his desk for his pistol is somehow an ideal example of the defense of Parliament and not an indicator that something is, in fact, wrong.
Should we or could we defend Parliament against a potential assault from Seal Team Six after they’ve each had a triple espresso? No.
But this was a single person armed with what I believe to be a non-semi-auto rifle and look how far he got. Not acceptable, not par for the course, and an occurrence that should have been reasonably foreseen.
Things are going to change on the hill. But I guess that would be “wrong”.
Well, if you can direct me to a building that is defended in such a way that it would be difficult for a foreseeable force to penetrate it, I would say, “Like that.”
Maybe something between The NSA or Fort Knox and, well, Parliament before yesterday.
This was a lone nutbar. He shot a ceremonial guard in the back, and then he walked into a staff entrance on Parliament hill guarded by two armed guards. He shot the first guard and then grazed the second guard as he was diving away.
Then he was killed by the Sergeant-at-arms without any further injuries.
Frankly I think we don’t need to make any changes at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if the ceremonial guards are armed from now on, and the vigilance of the armed guards on the hill is increased, and perhaps the Sergeant-at-arms packs heat while on duty. That is all that is required in my opinion, and even that might be a stretch.
Our opponents have explicitly stated their intentions and carried them out, demonstrating real, specific threat.
This informs us of real, potential targets such as the two most visible and symbolic soldiers in the nation.
And we did nothing beyond the norm to protect them. Nothing. Because this is Canada and things are Great! and guns are scary.
But my suggestion that the risk against them was real and foreseeable and that we should have done something for them like arm them or guard them or ultimately pull them off post if guns are too scary for us is somehow a “curious over-reaction”.
Even though he’s already dead.
Tell me that it was proper and quite right that we did nothing to protect them and I’ll pass it on to the dead soldier’s family if I see them, as you’ll have assumed his post, naturally. Without protection. As it’s not needed. Clearly.
I thought it was something more specific than it actually is, but based on some googling, http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/PeaceOfficer.aspx , police are peace officers (and can obviously carry guns) but there are lots of other occupations that are peace officers as well (I didn’t bother checking which if any carry guns).