Well, yes, that would have been awesome. Still, it’s quite something to see the head official actually leading under fire; the gentleman was a long-service veteran of the RCMP before getting this gig so he knew what had to be done.
… and he was wearing his ceremonial garb at the time! 
[Refers to an exchange earlier in this thread @ posts 45-46]
I had assumed the sergeant-at-arms role was strictly ceremonial. This guy is Canada’s James Bond. Well done sir.
This has got to be the first time a seargent-at-arms has ever performed this particular role.
As a side-note, I’m not sure our American friends in the media have quite realized just how bizzare it is to have the seargent-at-arms personally take down an armed attacker.
I was listening to a US news station, and they reported the event as something like ‘the assailant was killed by security forces’. This is of course true, but under the circumstances, a bit of an understatement … I’m not sure there is an American equivalent or analogous role, though.
Guy looks like he should have had a martini in one hand with a girl at his side while he shot the intruder.
They have them too:
Interesting, I did not know that - they even have ceremonial maces.
No cool outfits though, just business suits. 
Hey, I wear an outfit line that at work sometimes - but without the bicorne hat.
As do I - very occasionally. I think I was in court a grand total of twice last year. 
I think he looks rather shaken because he had to kill someone.
The more you read about our Sergeant-at-Arms the more you have to admire the guy.
From Wente’s opinion piece today:
Shaken but not stirred.
He needs a cool quip, too. “Your citizenship is revoked,” or hopefully something good.
In a 29 year career with the RCMP, ending as a Chief Superintendent, this is apparently the first time he’s fired a gun in the line of duty.
It is kind of, but not quite, like a guy attacking Buckingham palace and being taken out by one of the guards in the big hats and red coats that normally just stand very still while tourists take pictures with them.
The Buckingham Palace guards have very modern working weapons. They are active combat units that are rotated through that role. It would surprise me if they didn’t have ammunition. But they are actually part of the security of the facility. I do not have working knowledge of the Canadian memorial but it appears to be similar to the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington. The guards on duty there have ceremonial M-14s. It is obvious that they have no ammo because when they do the ceremonial inspection of the weapon no ammo flies out. But they are not guarding anything except a grave and some concrete. The guard shack is not far away and I wouldn’t doubt the sergeant of the guard has access to working weapons.
In the real world it is very rare for soldiers to actually have weapons and ammo when not on the range.
Why M-14s? The weapon does look very classy.
I’m not into dressing up (well, I’ve never been big on the dressing thing at all), and I don’t wear a suit or a tie at the office. I don’t like having to gown for court and wear what is essentially a blanket that overheats me, snags on objects and keeps needing adjustment, but over the years I’ve grown to appreciate the a significant benefit from robing. I’ve noticed the behaviour of the public is better in the courtrooms and waiting areas when the lawyers are in formal attire. It makes for a better working environment, with fewer interruptions in the courtroom.
While I was slowly coming to this conclusion, I was wondering why this was. My question was answered this year after a new courthouse had been erected in my town to hold both the the court for which we gown and the court for which we don’t gown. There is a lot of jurisdictional overlap in my practice area, so I attend at court on substantially similar matters in both courts, using the same law and the same procedure (and yes, unification of the courts in this practice area is moving forward, but is has not arrived in my region yet). The different courts have separate but identical floors in the building – only the coats of arms behind the daises and the colours of the judge’s sashes are different, aside from the lawyers’ attire.
The difference in the public’s behaviour between the two courts is still noticeable. On the floors of the court for which we gown, the demeanor of the public is similar to what one would find in the adult section of a library. On the floors of the court for which we don’t down, the demeanor of the public is often disruptive, with loud talking and occasional outbursts.
So here I am, admitting that a sartorial embuggerance is actually very helpful.
“Sir, you are out of order”.
A special sitting of the House of Commons has given Mr. Vickers a standing ovation: - YouTube .
No doubt about it. Kevin Vickers is a true to life bad-ass who saved Parliament from a terrorist attack. We all owe him.
And hats off to the officers who ran toward the gunfire.