And as I understand it, had the soldier’s weapon been loaded it wouldn’t have mattered because it was a sneak attack. Also, a loaded weapon in the middle of a crowd like that brings on the problem the guards inside the building faced, which is that they were afraid to fire into the crowd and thus let the perp keep running (although one tried to grab his rifle and either point it down or wrest it away from him).

It’s a very good thing that Vickers was able to get off a good clean shot. I’m not sure if he just was a really good shot, more willing to take risks than the others, saw the situation as more dire (the perp was almost at the door of the House of Commons assembly room itself), or there were fewer other people around at that point.

Even troops used in crowd control rarely have their weapons loaded to avoid Kent State type screw ups.

This business of gelding our soldiers has to stop. Both parties in the US have been guilty of it.

Thought experiment: if a neo-Nazi went ape and shot up the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and then got into the Capitol and stalked the pols there, would we be hearing all this bilge about how the Nazi movement had naught to do with it?

Yeah, right.

“It was confirmed later the gunman was shot dead inside the building, felled by the House of Commons sergeant-at-arms …”

How do we know he didn’t have his hands up, and was just murdered by the sergeant-at-arms?

Was Bibea actually in the process of killing anyone when he was shot? Or did the sergeant-at-arms simply take it upon himself to be judge, jury, and executioner?

Progressive minds demand to know!

Part of that had to do with the Afghanistan and Iraq death grinds that took up most of the jihad’s manpower, leaving the rest of the Western world to think terrorism was something the US is causing. When the US actually started funding AQ after 2008, things become no longer a fantasy any more.

If it is important for the ceremonial soldier to be unarmed, then he should have arms readily available when needed… or he should have a comrade-in-arms covering him.

I do agree that it is dishonorable, in the extreme, to set up a warrior as a sitting duck.

The law is inside out; the world is upside down.

“Moderate” Muslims will never rise up to oppose the “radical” Muslims because the basis of the radical theology is an inherent part of the Koran and Hadith.

Link here