>>>>>I've been following the story in Ohio....that man is sick, sick, sick, and deserves the gas.
>>>>
>>>>We don't agree about the death penalty but this guy seems about as evil as they come. For sure he should never be eligible for parole.
>>>
>>>yes, it would certainly be wrong for the army to take the life of someone who killed a dozen of our troops. I am sure that in more civilized nations the military is not allowed to kill people who kill them. I fear we may not be that evolved or nuanced.
>>>
>>>Had he been shot down, as he should have been, after the first shot by an armed soldier - as they all should have been at all times - it would have been considered proper, but if someone were to walk into his hospital room ( I volunteer ) and put one behind his ear right now it would induce a case of the vapors in all right-(or should I say left-) thinking citizens.
>>>
>>>Strikes me as similar to the "5 second rule" about eating food that fell on the floor ...
>>
>>I thought the only people allowed to carry weapons on military bases are MPs. Everyone else's weapons are kept locked up.
>
>That's the problem with gun control - even on military bases. The bad guys just don't follow the rules...that's why no one else was carrying a loaded weapon other than the MPs and civilian police force on post.

But doesn't the presence of nasty guns just breed ... well, violence? Do we really want to be teaching our soldiers that it is a violent, dangerous world where they may, at any moment, be at risk or be needed to protect others who are at risk? Doesn't it just feel warmer and fuzzier and more ... civilized to pretend ?

"The ultimate maturity of military virtue is a discipline so highly organized and intelligent it can accept the strain of perpetual readiness for an emergency which that readiness perpetually precludes."