Not sure this is a joke - this is a picture of the actual guy wearing his ceremonial outfit. If Parliament was in session at the time, this is what he would actually have looked like at the time of the incident (minus the ceremonial mace).
To quickly play it out, for the purposes of moving the thread along:
Buddy: If Canadians allowed guns, there would have been more people to shoot the crazy guy down!
Cindy: It’s because the US allows guns to be bought that it’s easy for Canadians to have guns. I’ll bet you the gun that was used by the shooter was legally purchased in the US!
Buddy: Even if so, he would just have bought it illegally if he couldn’t buy it legally. Or he would have built a bomb and used that. It’s not like the murder rate is any lower in the UK than in the US, despite having no guns. People kill using whatever tools they have at hand.
Cindy: You can’t prove that, and this killer used a gun that he almost certainly bought from the US, so it’s the fault of Americans selling guns.
Well … apparently the one attacker we are certain about was using a long gun, which is legal to purchase in Canada, and his reign of terror was brought low after his first victim by the man in charge of security in Parliament (who was, perforce, authorized to have a weapon).
Not sure how those facts play out in the US gun control debate …
There are some, but it is intensely regulated and restrictive in terms of storage and use and if you are caught breaking the rules you are in very deep doo-doo.
Fox news is reporting that there was a spike in chatter from ISIS talking about Canada. So yeah, it appears to be terrorism. It would seem that the Canadian government didn’t take the threat seriously enough.
Also, the guy on monday is reported as having been “radicalized,” and had tried to travel to Syria to join ISIS, but the RCMP stopped him and confiscated his passport.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is definitely more than random crazies.