Here he is again, the loser with a grudge and a gun slithering up from the basement of a middle-class home where he fermented his immaturity, anger and resentments to full and deadly potency "interacting" with like creatures on the Internet.
His mom says he was "a good son."
The neighbours' comments -- the banality of this would be screamingly funny were it not for the horror of the event -- amount to this: He was quiet and kept to himself.
Aren't they always.
His resentment and anger are perfectly understandable.
He's a loser and losers spend their lives being angry and resentful.
It's one of the reasons they're losers. Life is something that happens to them. They aren't something that happens to life.
They aren't achievers.
Worst of all, he knows he's a loser, but failing the courage or will to do something about it and actually change, he decides to write his name in the pages of our times with gunfire, and paint a final statement with the innocent blood of students -- young people working toward successful futures.
His victims are everything he is not.
The ultimate proof he's a loser: His final statement, his final moments in life are desperately unoriginal. Just another loser in a long list of losers. The perpetrators of Columbine and Taber and all the others.
He was 25 years old.
Who among us is still so much an angry adolescent at 25?
And thanks to him, yet again, every man or woman in this country who has ever offered up time and devotion to the mastery and pleasure of a rifle or pistol is suspect.
Wendy Cukier, the mastermind behind Canada's obscenely expensive and ineffective gun registry -- she's president of the Coalition for Gun Control -- along with her Liberal Party lapdogs promised us more gun control would make us safer.
Way to go, Wendy.
See, this loser jumped through all the hoops, complied with the gun legislation and guess what?
He passed. His firearms were legally owned.
When questioned in the aftermath of this event, Cukier told CBC that: "The argument for gun control has never been based on individual cases. (It) has always been based on the general principle that if you have adequate control on all guns, you reduce the chances that dangerous people will gain access to them. You don't eliminate them."
Her statement is disingenuous to say the least.
"Disingenuous" is a fancy word for "lie."
The entire gun control and registry debate in this country is, and always has been, based on an individual case, that of the slaughter of 14 female students at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique in 1989 by another loser with a grudge.
And it has been a debate that has demonstrated a barely concealed hostility toward men in general and male firearms owners in particular.
In Canada, gun control wasn't a public policy issue, it became -- thanks to the 1989 massacre with a male perpetrator and female victims -- part of the nation's ongoing gender wars and was framed in precisely those terms.
Anyone who objected to the content of the legislation -- citing practicality, lack of efficacy, civil rights -- was written off as some kind of psychopathic redneck whose idea of formal wear was to try to iron a crease in his army surplus fatigue pants before plunking himself down in front of Ted Nugent's hunting show on the Outdoor network while chowing down on a big ol' bag of deep-fried pork rinds with his arm around his sister.
That was a lie, too.
There is but a single lesson to be learned from this event.
The people who told you government regulation would protect you against monster losers with grudges were lying.
And when they tell us in the coming days that just a little bit more paperwork, just a few more tweaks to the legislation, that will make us safer, they're still lying.
Discuss this and many other Hunting and Fishing related topics at.
SHS HUNTING CHAT "The Heart of the Hunting Community"