# Canadian Parliament in lockdown due to a shooter



## Vivjen (Oct 22, 2014)

Canadian Parliament in lockdown, and a soldier has been shot at the War Memorial, in Ottowa.

Info is very sketchy; this happened just before 10.00 local time..


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 22, 2014)

The soldier was wounded and one gunman shot and killed. There may be more gunmen, hence the lockdown.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/1...l-active-shooter-believed-to-be-on-the-loose/

Additional - it must have been very frightening


> Up to 40 shots were fired by a lone gunman in and around the parliament buildings, according to the BBC.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 22, 2014)

Gun free zone --  target rich envoirnment


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 22, 2014)

You are quite the treat.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 22, 2014)

rt3 said:


> Gun free zone --  target rich envoirnment



That's true.  Examples are the military base shootings after they stopped allowing the troops to carry, the movie theater, the school shootings, etc.  Luckily the Oklahoma beheader was stopped before he cut another innocent victim's head off, by someone who had a gun.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 22, 2014)

YES..... we definately needed a dark movie theatre of armed people not knowing what was happening, shooting wildly at random..  WHATEVER could have gone wrong?


----------



## Vivjen (Oct 22, 2014)

One gunman shot, by armed security...


----------



## tnthomas (Oct 22, 2014)

You can't "fix" stupid, but for people that have experience with firearms the 'wild shooting at random' in a darkened movie theatre wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 22, 2014)

tnthomas said:


> You can't "fix" stupid, but for people that have experience with firearms the 'wild shooting at random' in a darkened movie theatre wouldn't be an issue.




So... it is a given that everyone in that theater that could have carried a gun would be experienced and able to stay calm and evaluate the situation and know where to shoot?   That all the armed people have hit the target... and no innocent people would have been shot..  Alrighty then.................


----------



## Debby (Oct 22, 2014)

I came across this article from Glenn Greenwald and while he isn't addressing the shooting incident specifically(he mentions it at the end), he makes some valid points I think about Canadian thinking on this situation.  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40032.htm


----------



## SifuPhil (Oct 22, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> So... it is a given that everyone in that theater that could have carried a gun would be experienced and able to stay calm and evaluate the situation and know where to shoot?   That all the armed people have hit the target... and no innocent people would have been shot..  Alrighty then.................



_The tree of liberty must be refreshed_ _from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants_.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 22, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> _The tree of liberty must be refreshed_ _from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants_.



In otherwords... collateral damage is justified in your opinion?  What's a few more dead kids.


----------



## WhatInThe (Oct 22, 2014)

Too early to analyze incomplete information other than offer best wishes to wounded and family of those involved.

 I will say sometimes it best to pay close attention to the early reports because the talking heads on tv give a lot of raw unedited and unspun information. Tuck away what you hear now in the begining away for future use. Many pieces of the puzzle are being given out now.

Peace


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 22, 2014)

The soldier has died of his wounds. A security guard was wounded and the gunman was killed.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...hot_at_war_memorial_in_ottawa_police_say.html


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 22, 2014)

rt3 said:


> Gun free zone --  target rich envoirnment



Who said it was a gun free zone? 
The parliament has armed security.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 22, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Who said it was a gun free zone?
> The parliament has armed security.




I think he means that everyone in there... including visitors should be allowed to Pack Heat...


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 22, 2014)

That's a gun 'free for all' zone.


----------



## Denise1952 (Oct 22, 2014)

I just don't understand what some folks are thinking about this gun thing.  I don't know about other countries, but anyone can manage to get a gun, license or no license.  So that means every crook can have his very own gun.  So, we ban guns in American.  What part of "that still leaves the bad guys with their guns" do people not understand.  Only the law-abiding are going to give up their guns.  Or the desperate folks that break the law in hopes of saving their family, or themselves.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 22, 2014)

Interesting.... Didn't seem to pan out when Australia banned guns..  No criminals wildly murdering unarmed people.. Homicides are down. not up.


----------



## AprilT (Oct 22, 2014)

I'm all for those that wish to carry, within reason, excluding myself; I'm likely to have what happened to this guy (not in exact way,) happen to me, that or I'll just manage to shoot myself in the foot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx_YUO4SzcY


----------



## Davey Jones (Oct 22, 2014)




----------



## Denise1952 (Oct 22, 2014)




----------



## rt3 (Oct 22, 2014)




----------



## tnthomas (Oct 22, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> So... it is a given that everyone in that theater that could have carried a gun would be experienced and able to stay calm and evaluate the situation and know where to shoot?   That all the armed people have hit the target... and no innocent people would have been shot..  Alrighty then.................



No, that would be several jumps to several very weak conclusions, I would say.   But, people who DO know how to handle firearms are less likely to cause the "wild shooting" in the dark movie theater scenario.


----------



## Denise1952 (Oct 22, 2014)

funny RT3, I was driving through a neighborhood just a couple days ago and saw one of those signs "drug free zone".  I thought, ok, but if I were a drug dealer or druggie, how would that stop me?  Your post makes good sense as well


----------



## rt3 (Oct 22, 2014)

quick there you go changing the topic again.  didn't Warrigal post some stuff awhile back on their PM wanting to declare martial law now that the guns were banned. of course their reason stated by their gov. is against terrorists in view of the beheading and all. So lets turn that around a bit a just say the person wouldn't have been beheaded if they would have been up on the self defense stuff.

Your chances of being being hit by lightning are greater than being in a mass shooting, or terrorist attack. (unless your a politician of course). Your chances of using stand your ground at the local 7-11 are 1000 times higher.


----------



## tnthomas (Oct 22, 2014)

In the event that this thread has evolved into a pro/anti gun control thread, I just would like to clarify my position: some people are not competent to possess firearms, as such should-be screened out at the point-of-sale(think Brady Bill).  For [US]law abiding citizens 2nd amendment  rights should be guaranteed.    

Yes, guns do kill people, when they are in the wrong hands.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 22, 2014)

They're saying there was a lot of ISIS "chatter" there before the incident.  This man had an incident recently where he killed with his car there...http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/1...de-martin-rouleaus-rapid-decent-to-extremism/  They don't know for sure if it's ISIS or extremist related.


----------



## SifuPhil (Oct 22, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> In otherwords... collateral damage is justified in your opinion?  What's a few more dead kids.



If the bad guys see that they're going to be opposed there will soon be fewer bad guys. Collateral damage? We already HAVE people dying - it can't get much worse, but at least it holds promise of becoming better if we DO something about it.

Oh, wait ... that's YOUR line, isn't it?


----------



## Denise1952 (Oct 22, 2014)

Thanks Seabreeze, for that article.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 22, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Interesting.... Didn't seem to pan out when Australia banned guns..  No criminals wildly murdering unarmed people.. Homicides are down. not up.
> 
> View attachment 10603



We still have gun homicides QuickSilver. News this morning is of three dead in rural Victoria, one elderly couple and the son of the woman, all killed by a neighbour over some dispute. The gun was registered and legal and gun ownership is not uncommon in rural areas.

What we haven't had since the gun buyback is a single massacre in a public place.



> didn't Warrigal post some stuff awhile back on their PM wanting to declare martial law now that the guns were banned



Not martial law, rt3, just some extra powers to the spooks, and there is no doubt about who is being watched. And please get it through your head that there is no blanket ban on guns over here, just sensible regulation.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 22, 2014)

You're welcome Nwlady!  I just heard about it on the news, guess it didn't make big headlines because there wasn't a gun used?  Now they're saying there may have been three people involved in this latest attack on the Canadian Parliament.  Guess we just wait until all the facts slowly come to light.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 22, 2014)

If you are referring to the deaths at Wedderburn, Victoria, then yes. They were all shot to death. With a legal gun.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 22, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> We still have gun homicides QuickSilver. News this morning is of three dead in rural Victoria, one elderly couple and the son of the woman, all killed by a neighbour over some dispute. The gun was registered and legal and gun ownership is not uncommon in rural areas.
> 
> What we haven't had since the gun buyback is a single massacre in a public place.
> 
> ...




Which is exactly all SANE people are asking for here.. Sensible regulation, background checks... and limitation to the size of clips.  WHY does anyone need a clip that holds 50 or 100 rounds?   That would go a long way in preventing masacres.


----------



## Denise1952 (Oct 22, 2014)

Yeah, I can see the terrorists, and terrorist wanna-be's lining up to turn in there ammo and high-powered, automatic weapons.  

Will the "real" sane folks please stand up.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 22, 2014)

It's not aimed at terrorists, Nwlady. For them we need vigilance by the security organisations.
However people may argue the toss, it is true that there was an immediate brake on public massacres, of which we had previously had our share - Strathfield Mall, the Viking Tavern, Hoddle Street and Port Arthur to name the most notorious ones. 

How many massacres does it take to start thinking about making some changes to the way firearms are regulated?

No regulations will eliminate all gun deaths but they can help save some lives.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 22, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> It's not aimed at terrorists, Nwlady. For them we need vigilance by the security organisations.
> However people may argue the toss, it is true that there was an immediate brake on public massacres, of which we had previously had our share - Strathfield Mall, the Viking Tavern, Hoddle Street and Port Arthur to name the most notorious ones.
> 
> How many massacres does it take to start thinking about making some changes to the way firearms are regulated?
> ...




We really believed the massacre of 20 little children in Sandy Hook Elementary school is anything would bring about some change and some regulations.. BUT sadly, the NRA said they would score any vote in Congress to do so.. Then the Right Wing echo chamber started spreading the nonsense that this was a staged event to enable Obama to come take everyone's guns away... and that was the end of any sane and sensible gun regulation.  People here are riddled with fear and distrust of everything.  I blame the media for that.


----------



## Denise1952 (Oct 22, 2014)

I'm not convinced it would help save some lives.  I suppose we'll see if regulations, or taking away the right to bear arms is taken away.


----------



## tnthomas (Oct 22, 2014)

The lives saved by domestic firearm regulation can not be accurately determined, and is negligable compared to avoiding contrived military actions.

Want to save* a lot* of lives? Be a lot *more careful *about who you vote for in presidential elections...see link:

Casualties in Iraq


----------



## Denise1952 (Oct 22, 2014)

Man I agree with that tnt, but how the hell can you make a good decision on who to vote for when none of them seem to keep their promises.  Do people actually think they mean to keep those promises, or do we think they will even be able to.  Voting is like Russian Roulette anymore


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 22, 2014)

One thing is certain.... No one is coming for anyones guns.


----------



## tnthomas (Oct 22, 2014)

nwlady said:


> Man I agree with that tnt, but how the hell can you make a good decision on who to vote for when none of them seem to keep their promises.  Do people actually think they mean to keep those promises, or do we think they will even be able to.  Voting is like Russian Roulette anymore



There's no way any candidate can keep campaign promises verbatim, as situations are ever-changing...that said, an outright "flip-flp" should be scrutinized critically.

I try to get a fix on the candidate's integrity and charecter.  Can they smile and joke, and not take themselves too seriously; do they treat the oppisition with respect, or do they speak trash and use 'dirty' tactics, etc.


----------



## Denise1952 (Oct 22, 2014)

That's good advice, and things to watch for.  I do go with my gut-instincts much of the time, and those "feelings" have to do with how a candidates acts, how he speaks, etc.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 22, 2014)

brady bill with magazine banned, sunsetted several years ago and was not re-instated because it did nothing to prevent crime.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 22, 2014)

never said that Australia had a blanket gun ban. I Internet on a regular basis with shooters in Aussie. 

define safe and sane gun regulation


----------



## rt3 (Oct 22, 2014)

you can't vote for the "best" candidate --- they aren't running

you get a choice, and hopefully eliminate the worst one.


----------



## BobF (Oct 22, 2014)

How did this Canadian mess get turned into a private ownership of guns in the US debate. 

No private ownership of guns in the US involved at all.   I don't think we need to attack our Constitution as some seem to think we should.   Our Constitution is one of the oldest active in the world.    Must have been something good in the readings of it.   We sure don't need a bunch of political lawyers adding thousands of words to the Constittution with all kinds of DO NOTS and legal double talk about what the citizens can or should do.

My next comment will likely be considered political, so I won't do that.    Leave the US Constitution alone.    It has worked well and will continue to do so.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 22, 2014)

Well said Bob, it has nothing to do with the Canadian shooting.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 22, 2014)

good deal, what is the latest? all I can find are what hockey games have been cancelled. 

oh darn just one more


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 22, 2014)

> define safe and sane gun regulation


That's up to the Congress but unless it is reasonably uniform over all states it will never be effective.
In the US, as in Australia, free trade between the states is an important plank of the Constitution. 

If you aren't allowed to purchase a death ray (for the sake of argument let's not specify an actual firearm) in your own state but you can drive to a neighbouring state, purchase the death ray of your choice, or several of them, and then transport your arsenal back home over the state line, then what good is the ban on death rays anywhere?

It doesn't really matter whether or not the Founding Fathers envisaged how deadly the modern death ray can be, nor what it can do to people gathered together in a theatre, shopping mall or football stadium; if one state fails to regulate them, then it is pointless for regulations in the other 49 states.

IMO, sane gun regulation will only come about after much serious work done at state and federal level, with the backing of the majority of the people. It must be democratic to be effective. It must also be bipartisan to neutralise the power of vested interests.


----------



## WhatInThe (Oct 22, 2014)

Gunmen had criminal record.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...as-convert-to-islam-with-criminal-record.html

Also apparently had money to travel.

This is not a gun control debate. This was terrorism. And how does a guy with a criminal record get profitable employment not only to survive but travel and buy weapons while taking time out to covert to Islam.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 22, 2014)

Whether he had a job or not is moot as far as I can tell. I suspect that this incident is part of a wider plan to ramp up terrorism in western countries involved in actions against ISIS. 

Prison is one of the places where radicalisation takes place and contacts are forged. He could have been receiving funds from the islamists overseas.

I would guess that he was acting on orders and that more attacks will follow. Parliament House security in Canberra has already been beefed up. Vigilance is crucial  now.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 23, 2014)

It goes to show that Islamic terrorism is not just a USA problem.. THEY are after any Western country.. It doesn't matter if they are affiliated with the USA or not or how much they are.. They are targets.. as much as we are.  SO... let's stay out of the ISIS thing.. Seriously?


----------



## Twixie (Oct 23, 2014)

WhatInThe said:


> Gunmen had criminal record.
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...as-convert-to-islam-with-criminal-record.html
> 
> ...



Apparently he was on a high risk list due to his views..Stephen Harper made a brilliant speech in my opinion..I can't remember the exact words but it went along the lines..'We will not tolerate their savagery here in Canada''


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 23, 2014)

I agree... he did respond well..  I understand Canadian officials have quite a few under surveilance...  Including the guy who just a week ago ran his car into two military people killing one.   This is the problem.. they are under "watch", but they still have been able to pull off acts of terrorism... How closely are they being "watched"?     Not just in Canada, but here too..  We have people on our "list"... whooptie doo..... they are on a list.. are we watching them closely?


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 23, 2014)

If we are really at war then I think it might be necessary to open internment camps for people who give indication of radicalisation. I hesitate to suggest this because it is a drastic move but it might just become necessary. I'm not arguing for lots of Gitmos to spring up and judicial oversight would be essential to make sure that internment is warranted.

During both world wars so called "enemy aliens" were routinely interned over here but I would leave most people alone and just round up the more problematic ones.


----------



## oakapple (Oct 23, 2014)

People with links to terrorism ARE being watched, but they allow them freedom to find out what they are planning.Unfortunately it doesn't always work, as attacks here have proved.


----------



## Twixie (Oct 23, 2014)

Here in Britain, we had people like Abu Hamza..who would hold ''hate rallies'' in the street...

We wouldn't send him back to Egypt because that would infringe on his rights!!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/19/abu-hamza-found-guilty-terrorism-charges

Sorry to have lumbered you with his sorry carcass!!

His family still live the life of luxury..in a 5 bedroom house, in a really nice part of London..all paid for by the British taxpayer..:soangry:


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 23, 2014)

Internment camps really didn't work out well for us when we rounded up Japanese citizens and stuck them in it during WWII..


----------



## Debby (Oct 23, 2014)

Twixie said:


> Here in Britain, we had people like Abu Hamza..who would hold ''hate rallies'' in the street...
> 
> We wouldn't send him back to Egypt because that would infringe on his rights!!
> 
> ...




What do mean paid for by tax payers?  Aren't immigrants required to support themselves at some point?  To tell you the truth I'm not even sure what the rules are here in Canada.  I know when we sponsored our friend who was moving from the USA back in the 70's, my husband and I had to promise to support her in the event she was unemployed at any time in the following ten years.  I wonder if it's changed since then?


----------



## Twixie (Oct 23, 2014)

Debby said:


> What do mean paid for by tax payers?  Aren't immigrants required to support themselves at some point?  To tell you the truth I'm not even sure what the rules are here in Canada.  I know when we sponsored our friend who was moving from the USA back in the 70's, my husband and I had to promise to support her in the event she was unemployed at any time in the following ten years.  I wonder if it's changed since then?



http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/47...million-London-home-and-claim-33-800-benefits

Doesn't that make you sick??


----------



## Debby (Oct 23, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Internment camps really didn't work out well for us when we rounded up Japanese citizens and stuck them in it during WWII..




Maybe the difference would be (as suggested by DW) that the people who get 'locked up' would have to show actual indications of radicalization as opposed to just locking up people because of their heritage.  Canada did the same thing with internment camps in WWII.  

On the other hand, is sticking a bunch of hot-head, angry people in camps where they can learn from one another and whip up more frenzy amongst themselves the right way to go?  I don't know what the answer is except maybe our future PM, Justin Trudeau was on the right track when he suggested that first and foremost it's imperative to figure out WHY they get like this and that might give clues on future efforts to change the situation.


----------



## Debby (Oct 23, 2014)

Twixie said:


> Apparently he was on a high risk list due to his views..Stephen Harper made a brilliant speech in my opinion..I can't remember the exact words but it went along the lines..'We will not tolerate their savagery here in Canada''




He only said the things all leaders say at a time like this.  Stephen Harper is anything but brilliant.  An interesting fact that I never knew until recently was that Harper belonged to a group that actively spoke against the release of Nelson Mandela when he was in prison and yet here we are 2013 and he's there looking all 'sad and sorrowful' that a great man has died.http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2013/12/16/Harper-Mandela/



I came across a link that lays out the polarizing effect this current government has had on the country.  A little convoluted but interesting none the less.  http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...t-so-is-the-total-devotion-of-his-supporters/

From the link:  "....There is certainly plenty that is objectionable, even disturbing about this government: the unceasing partisanship, the peculiar nastiness, the crudeness, the expediency, the chronic secrecy and dishonesty. It picks fights needlessly, sees enemies everywhere, casts aside ancient parliamentary prerogatives as lightly as it does its own convictions, all in the single-minded, indeed obsessive pursuit of power...."


----------



## Debby (Oct 23, 2014)

Twixie said:


> http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/47...million-London-home-and-claim-33-800-benefits
> 
> Doesn't that make you sick??




That is outrageous!  I think the rules should be 'you're welcome to come to 'my country' but the minute you break a law and are convicted, you're sent back to wherever you came from and you never get to come back'.  Reading through the link you provided, sounds like that family or at least most of them would be gone from the UK and I know we have lots of those kinds of things going on here.  Like how does that happen anyway?  Who writes these stupid laws that allow that?


----------



## tnthomas (Oct 23, 2014)

Western societies have become too civilized, it's the weakness that 3rd world malcontents hate and will exploit...


----------



## Debby (Oct 23, 2014)

tnthomas said:


> Western societies have become too civilized, it's the weakness that 3rd world malcontents hate and will exploit...




A society can never become too civilized.  Being able to show compassion and kindness takes far more strength of character than knee jerk reactions that see mankind brutalizing one another ad nauseum.  And there are numerous other reasons why we're seeing the things that are going on, occurring.  It has little if anything to do with 'they hate us for our freedoms'.


----------



## WhatInThe (Oct 23, 2014)

Shooter a Libyain with dual citizenship?

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2014/...an-Shooting-Suspect-Zehaf-Bibeau-s-Background

Might have been an ex rebel fighter against Ghadafi.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 26, 2014)

American hockey fans sing O' Canada in support after Ottawa shootings...http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/sweet-nhl-tribute-after-ottawa-shootings/


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 26, 2014)

:clap: A lovely gesture. 
It happened at several sporting venues in the US on the day the Canadian soldier died and the Ottawa parliament building was breached.


----------

