SOCL

I can not wait for this movie!

My heart and sympathies go out to your girlfriend, Rob. Let her know she's in our thoughts and prayers.

I never blamed the guns for killing people, but I do blame guns as the enabler of more carnage and death than would be possible if the firearm wasn't so readily available. I also don't think that anyone has stated that citizens shouldn't own firearms, only that there should be a line between what is considered safe and legal and what is not. And it makes no difference how amazingly awesome or long someone has been exposed to firearms, assault weapons put more lead in the air than pistols. Pistols put more lead in the air than fists. The less of them you have, the less lead you'll have flying in the air. And the determined criminal will get a gun--fine, it will happen, but what is the likelihood they will if restrictions are placed on the sale and such of firearms?: Far lower. Sure, you may have a resurgence in knife and other such cutting violences, but those are easier to recover from. I don't know why the excuse that criminals will get them if they are determined enough is actually valid for allowing others to carry firearms. Again, Iran's going to get a nuke anyway, so why not just every country in the world a nuke? That'll work, right? I sure do trust Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Israel with nuclear weapons!

Rob, don't get me wrong. The Constitution's Second Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to bear arms (and arm bears! ), so let it be. I am a Soldier, I grew up in a military family, my grandfather was a cop--yeah, I've been exposed to firearms quite a bit, not to mention growing up in Norfolk, VA. I personally don't believe there is any need for civilians to own firearms, but since they do, I do believe they should be regulated in order to prevent people from acquiring them too easily or too quickly. I also believe that assault and automatic weapons should be outlawed--let me restated that, automatic weapons should be outlawed for civilian ownership. I have no issue with the military or police forces having firearms. Something just came to mind. I mentioned earlier that I believe firearm violence begets firearm violence in a sort of 'small-arms race', if you will, and that I do not believe that everyone being armed, as suggested by someone (I don't remember who), would keep people from committing crime under the threat of mutual annihilation. It was this small-arms race of sorts that forced the police departments around the USA to arm themselves with automatic weapons, namely AR-15/M16s and M4s, when in the early 90s a pair of bank robbers raided a bank in Beverly Hills, CA. Both were armed with AKs and other forms of assault rifles, and covered from head to toe in Kevlar body armor. This was one of the reasons used to support the Assault Weapons Ban, which the current Presidential Administration made no effort to renew. This sort violence forms a cycle wherein the good guys get bigger weapons to fight the bad guys, who get bigger weapons, etc. There are always going to be the freak cases that are completely out of pattern with criminal statistics, but lets be honest: less firearms in civilian hands, lower probability of nut-cases getting a hold of them. It's a fact you really can't dispute. Sure, a determined criminal will get a hold of weapon no matter what you do, but what, so we just let everyone get one? Okay, so I move that we let Iran have nukes, then--hell, everyone should have nuke! Mexico, Haiti, Somalia, and even poor Yemen. C'mon, they're going to get them anyway, so why not just make them totally legal?

I've split the Virginia Tech and the ensuing Gun Debate to this thread since it technically isn't a World Conflict.

Eh? Our police carry automatic firearms on a daily basis! MP5 submachine guns, AR-15/M16s assault rifles, M4 assault rifle/carbine, M85 .50 caliber sniper rifle(!). Our police forces use automatic weapons all of the time, likely more often than European police agencies. Did you notice all those M4s at Virginia Tech? I actually beg to differ. My cousin was confused for someone else and a cop in Chicago pulled a gun on him while my cousin had his back turned. The cop yelled at him to turn around, and when he did, the cop fired! Yeah, no joke. If it wasn't for my cousin's dumb luck of flinching to one side, he would have ended up dead with a round in the face rather than a destroyed shoulder. Yeah, my cousin wasn't even mistaken for someone who was armed. Sorry, but if the cops know everyone has a weapon, they'd be more likely to shoot. They are trained to shoot to kill, and do so the moment they believe they are at risk. I know this: my grandfather was a police chief, as is my uncle, and a very close family friend. They tell me this all the time. I never said to take away everyone's firearm(s). I personally don't see a reason for it, but it's a guaranteed Constitutional right in the USA. Even so, I believe it should be regulated: highly! In that case we can reduce the odds of an armed nutcase from one-in-a-million to one-in-a-billion. In any event, I'm not trying to make the world perfect, Tex--it won't happen, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to make it safer. Again, I never said you can't have a firearm, but I believe it needs to be regulated. I don't think this is particularly relevant to firearms, but even so... First, I'd like to know what atrocity comes even close to a single atrocity, even in percentage terms, of the ancient world to the modern world, or just the 20th Century! I would love to see some data, Tex, because death counts in battles or just normal scuffles were far fewer per person (percentage) than today. Most people actually didn't die in combat, Tex. In any event, you're talking about Roman legionaries, not civilians. Civilian citizens were not permitted to own swords or spears, Tex, after the 3rd Century BCE. Before that, everyone was a soldier, similar to Switzerland, thus everyone had to own a weapon, but was not permitted to leave home with it unless called to duty. They would be arrested and fined heavily for brandishing a weapon in public, of any sort. And murders, Tex, were not as common then as today, contrary to popular belief. In any event, I never ever, ever, ever (EVER!) said anything about soldiers, i.e. legionaries, owning weapons. There is no conflict between what I say and what I do, Tex. To make it clear: I reenact a Roman soldier, not a civilian with a gun, sword, spear, or whatever sort of weapon. I reenact someone who has an ordered necessity to carry a weapon, just like a modern day soldier. When not at war or on patrol, guess where the weapons were kept? No, the soldier didn't keep it, believe it or not, the Army kept the weapons in armories, just like in the modern day.

I prefer the European model: firearms for the police, firearms for the military. If you don't feel you can take care yourself without a firearm...well, there's something wrong there. People in Iraq and Afghanistan use this argument that they will not be regarded as "real men" without their weapon. Don't see why we in the Western world should think this way, too--haven't we progressed passed this? Haven't we progressed to talking and such before shooting? Sure, you'll need to protect yourself from some nut-case, but those are 1 in a million, in most cases, and unlike the previously mentioned countries, you're very unlikely to ever need to defend yourself with a firearm. The whole assured mutual destruction argument I find completely nonsensical. It surely worked during the Cold War--we only nearly destroyed each other a few hundred dozen times. This is an ego problem, as I see it. People don't want to be the guy who just walks away from a situation, so they'd rather pull a gun; luckily for them, so does the other guy, and both get themselves killed over essentially nothing. It's plain stupid. If I want settle all of my problems under the threat of lethal force, I'll move to Somalia. You don't need firearms, you want firearms. I've had a pistol shoved in my face as the victim of a crime, and I can assure you, if I had pulled a pistol, I'd be dead. Lucky for me, I did the reasonable thing and handed the fellow my wallet, my watch, and ring. After that, I walked to a phone booth, dialed that wonderful number 911 and my things were recovered an hour or so later. Glad I didn't shoot the fellow over it--no point in doing that, to tell you the truth. Besides, police have a tendency to accidentally shoot people when they're just pulling a wallet or phone from their pocket. Imagine if they had the thought that the guy they're approaching, like everyone else, has a firearm. Yeah, one wrong move, buddy, and you're dead because it doesn't matter who you are, you are too likely to have a firearm and, therefore, too likely to use it. They don't go, "Oh, this guy seems reasonable. He won't try to kill us." No, they shoot to kill if they think you're going to try to harm or kill them--no questions asked! It's the same reason police officers keep their hands on their pistols whenever they pull someone over--they don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt because that's how they're trained to react. I'm quite happy without a pistol. Sure, one day there might come that fellow with a gun who doesn't care for my wallet and will put a lead round through my forehead, but then, what, should I kill him, too? That's ego. Let someone else deal with him because I won't be able to do a damn thing either way.

What hassle? If you don't have any felony records you wait a week and get a gun. A friend of mine has a 9mm glock, two shotguns, and sks assault rifle. Another friend from high school, his dad was a gun collector, he had a small arsenal of different ak-47 models (6-8 or so) plus tons of other crap. Maybe if you live the suburbs and have your private security guarding your neighborhood you've never a gun, maybe a taser? I live in rural GA and people here own guns for more reasons than to shoot Deer and Turkey. I'd say 8 of 10 households here own at least one gun. I guarantee you if you live in the U.S. you are in and out of other people's homes everyday whose parents may own guns, you may not know it because they are kept under lock and key, but none the less they are there. Precisely why I would live on a military base if I ever returned to the state.

Jahled, certainly it's safe for everyone to have a weapon. Aside from the obviously strange circumstances of Switzerland where they keep weapons indoors for military use only, the rest of the world's individuals should very obviously carry firearms! Look at Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq: everyone there has their own firearm, and we all know that those are the safest countries in the world!

I understand what you're saying, Tex, but they had locked down the campus earlier in the year under similar circumstances with anything happening. It bothers me that here, though, they knew the gunman was out and on the loose and did nothing until two hours later (such as emailing the students) when the second shooting began. I realize it may have caused a panic, but better to cause a controlled panic and have the campus empty or mostly empty than have thousands of people walking around as potential targets for this gunman. Again, yes, it may have caused a slight panic, but the past two or three times they carried out the very procedure I suggested, there was no panic because the students knew exactly what to do. I'm waiting for the Administration to declare war on Asians/Pacific Islanders. The shooter himself was South Korean, to clear that up.

You say that, but Virginia Tech has dealt with a series of bomb threats and another shooting earlier this year, so I don't think what you're saying is necessarily valid. They already knew it could happen because it already had happened.

No a fan of Imus. I don't see how everyone carrying firearms would be at all safe. The threat of mutual extermination as a constant deterrent from crime is not an environment I'd like to live or raise a family in. No guns, minimal gun violence. I could care less if people want to own a gun, but then, it's about them, it's about the common good. Whether it's a pistol, .22, or an AK-47--guns kill, end of story. Sure, he could have easily wielded a knife, machete, or katana, but I'm rather certain more people would have escaped death in that sort of scenario. In any event, I'm not so much concerned over the gun laws. NRA is a powerful political lobby in this country, so powerful they managed to get gun laws repealed not long after the Columbine massacre. They also managed to overturn the assault weapons ban so now I can go off and buy an AK-47 and with the right type of tweaking, it's legally mine to use how I damn well please. Just what I've always wanted, an assault rifle. The gun laws in this incident don't really concern me for the above stated reason. Rather, I'm concerned over the fact that the President of the University did not shut down the university after the first shooting took place. Sure, they shut down that particular building (a dormitory), but they must have known that would accomplish nothing. He spouted excuses about not being able to do anything because "thousands of students were in transit" to the campus. So it just took two hours for them to figure it all out. Well, I'm inclined to blame this guy for criminal negligence. I don't honestly give a damn if people were in transit, you have a murder scene in a dorm and the gunman is GONE, out on the loose. He gave some stupid excuse about their believing the gunman was heading out-of-state, never once thinking he could come back? Or perhaps was still on campus? Fact of the matter was, someone committed a gun-violence murder on campus and their only response was to close that building despite the fact the gunman was out on the loose. I've been to VA Tech and they could have closed that university down. I don't care how open they want to say it is, I've been there and it wouldn't take much to set up police roadblocks to keep out at least a majority of students. And then the President of the Univ said that the email system ran late (at about 9 around the same time the second shooting was happening!) because it apparently takes time to send out an email. I think he's a liar! It does not take more than a minute or two to pull up an email program, select the 'all student' list, and give instructions to not come to campus and for everyone else to return and stay in their dorms until instructed otherwise. Combined with roadblocks, there wouldn't have been thousands of potential targets walking around. Instead, because of his negligence, 30 persons are dead and two dozen or so in hospital. I understand the gunman is ultimately to blame, but the authorities did NOTHING of value in response.

Have a friend at VA Tech. He's doing alright--didn't know it was happening until the police dragged him off campus. Apparently campus authorities didn't decide to shut down the university until AFTER the second shooting had begun despite knowing the shooter was on the loose. Very sad, very depressing.

Tofu, why do people's eyes in your comics look so...clear? They aren't just dots or slits. Very nice. Oh, yeah, Happy Birthday, Rob.

Death Star would probably take up too much space Well, I certainly didn't mean the whole thing. Just show it in the background, like a shadow, or something, with the superlaser focusing disk in the background for perspective. Rather the way The Imperial Sourcebook shows the Executor in the background.

The original post by LaForge shows what they label an Acclamator-class, but the profile is that of a Victory-class, or rather, it doesn't match the profile of an Acclamator. I also find it odd they didn't add in one of the most obvious ships from Star Wars: Death Star. Nice find.

Am I missing that much hair? Oh, Tofu...

Oh...my... Quite disturbing.

I whole-heartedly agree with you on this matter. I think Tehran is smart enough to know that things could get worse if they don't release these poor fellows from their custody. In any event, with this, Iran keeps face by still claiming to have done everything justifiably, whilst the UK gets their personnel back. I don't think it's a simple as "no harm, no foul", but it's certainly better than getting caught in an escalating situation no one can back out of. Truthfully, in some ways, I'm happy it, of all people, happened to British troops rather than American troops. Not to mention American troops would probably have fought to their deaths before being captured, the current administration would probably have declared it an act of war and would get the ball rolling towards armed conflict. In fact, someone jokingly said to me that had it been President Bush and not Tony Blair, 'he would have rejected the return of the troops unless Iran agreed they were wrong in detaining them.' Made me laugh, but it also made me cringe because I sensed a level of truth to that, if not in the exact circumstances my friend framed it. Really, our brothers on the other side of the pond really have this communication, negotiation, and international diplomacy bit down. Even General Petraeus, current commander of Multi-National Force Iraq, took a page from the Brit's book in writing his counterinsurgency field manual for the Armed Forces and in the way he is handling matters, as compared to the former commander, George "Kill Everyone" Casey. People like Casey and Bolton make me sick, to tell the truth, and I regularly apologize for their conduct to anyone who asks as their prominence as American officials embarrasses me. Most of these Cold War relics seem to think that because the United States and, to a greater extent, the Western powers came out of the Cold War relatively successful and haven't been matched since, we can still push people around with the intimidation of arms and such. This course only works, though, until you do it, because in truth it's mostly a bluff. Sure, we might go and kick in your door, but when we get our muzzles bloodied in the process, people stop being so scared. It's the concept of having the capability to do it that matters, not the actual act. Once you start using that card, though, you've rid yourself of your best hand--and then what? And all this only two years (or so) away from being commissioned to serve the agenda of whoever happens to be voted into power. I'm taking advantage of it now because once I'm in, I have to keep my mouth shut.

Iran has decided to release the British servicemembers, though they still claim of being justified in detaining the personnel and that they are releasing the personnel under the auspices of being gracious and as a "gift for the British people." Whatever. At least they're being released without requiring armed conflict.

Likely not. Like I said, I'll be spending the majority of the summer at Fort Knox, training, so no study abroad this summer. Sadly, this also means I'll have to stick undergraduate out for two more whole semesters, which means I shan't graduate until the summer 2009... So there's still a chance of going at a later time, perhaps next summer (if they don't send me to Airborne School, that is).

C'mon. Think "oil".

Right now? Well, I'm hoping to be commissioned into the Infantry, but I'm not absolutely sure if I'll get that (since the Army gets the final word of your branch). If I do get my choice, though, I hope to go to Fort Drum to serve with the 10th Mountain Division, but I'm not very picky and might even volunteer for duty with the 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea. Ideally, any infantry division specializing in light warfare: 1st Brigade (Air Assault), 2nd Infantry Division (South Korea); 10th Mountain Division (Fort Drum, NY); 4th Airborne Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (Alaska); 82nd Airborne Division (Fort Bragg, NC); 101st Airborne Division (Fort Campbell, KY). Not very interested in doing the whole armored bit again. @Paul: Thanks, man. Means a lot. @Jahled: Oooh! Hopefully I'll get to London some day to see all of that!

At first I looked and thought India? Then I realized what it was. Man, I'm sure some European explorers would have wished for that... Better than rounding the Cape, eh?

Eagle, how did you know?! Okay, okay, time to explain away the confusion. At one point in time I was a regular grunt: a Soldier in the U.S. Army, and I served for a short time as an infantryman in a National Guard armored cavalry unit (makes sense, right?). When the Army reformed their units, I was able to fall into a strange little loophole where I got a chance to get out before they started their "back door draft" wherein the Army extends ones contract by anywhere from one to two years. I got out on a medical technicality, and got out just before my unit deployed to Iraq. Whilst all this was happening, I also led an everyday life, studying in university and working on my undergraduate degree towards a BA. Now I've joined the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), which will commission me an officer (Second Lieutenant) at the end, though this means I'll have to extend my time in university by two semesters, graduating and commissioning in May 2009. In order to accomplish all of this, I have to attend something called Leadership Training Course (LTC) at Fort Knox, KY, which will give me the basic training to be an officer. After that I'll continue into the advanced portion of studies, attend an advanced form of LTC next summer, take two last semesters, and be commissioned. As for the zoo: I don't actually work there. Well, I take that back, I conduct work and manual labor there, but I'm not an employee. The only way to work at the National Zoo is to either enter among the upper-brass in some sort of management or administrative capacity, or start as a volunteer and working your way up to an actual job. So, for right now, I am a volunteer at the National Zoo. I don't do much aside from Manual Labor, but what sets me apart from the paid people in the gift shops and food services is my motivation to work with animals that has me not being paid for picking up poo... Because of my ROTC commitment, I seriously doubt I'll be able to continue volunteering at the National Zoo. Besides, the ROTC pays me a stipend for serving. So it's kind of like a job...I guess...