In the news today

[Animeniax]

No, he was firing indiscriminately but apparently not actually aiming for anyone.

News story: http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte...ooting_on.html

Yes apparently he meant no harm to anyone and just wanted to be left alone to roam the campus with his assault rifle, but the SWAT team just wouldn't let him. You have to wonder what he planned to do with an AK-47 at 8AM on a Tuesday morning. It is around that time for the first wave of midterm exams (they call them midterms even though there's 3 of them during a semester).

At least this latest incident will help bring the issue of allowing concealed carry on campus back to the forefront. It was up for a vote in the last state legislative session, but the Dems effectively tabled it and some other pending legislation with a filibuster to stop voter ID or some such.

[Kraco]

Yeah, well, but if this dude intended to kill nobody but himself, then it was better there weren't any self-appointed heroes trying to stop him. Some guy with a pea shooter trying to stop a guy with an AK47 might have resulted in unnecessary casualties in this particular case.

[XanBcoo]

At least this latest incident will help bring the issue of allowing concealed carry on campus back to the forefront. It was up for a vote in the last state legislative session, but the Dems effectively tabled it and some other pending legislation with a filibuster to stop voter ID or some such.

No

Just no

[Animeniax]

No

Just no

Weird, my criminal justice sociology professor agrees with you. We had a fun discussion in class where a lot of uninformed people gave the usual defenses against it. I think too many people think it'll be cowboys and indians if you allow concealed carry on campuses. It's strange since concealed carry is allowed in so many places and we haven't achieved anarchy and all out warfare in those locations.

[XanBcoo]

Minimizing risks and variables is not achieved by increasing them.

It's especially inane to imply that things could have gone better in this case since the result was the 2nd best case scenario (1st being the guy not offing himself). By all eyewitness reports he was not out to harm anyone.

Keep the guns if you want, but don't try to argue that it would make things any safer.

[Animeniax]

No I wouldn't argue it would make anyone safer beyond myself (or whoever is the licensed carrier is). It also wouldn't make things any less safe, which is what opponents are arguing.

I agree most likely nothing would have changed in the particular case of the math major with the AK. Bu relying on eye witness reports doesn't tell the whole story. According to those reports, he did fire indiscriminately as he ran which definitely made for a hazardous situation. Also, one buddy's gf's friend's car got impounded by the police as evidence because a round hit the car. Not exactly victim-free.

[Uchiha Barles]

I'd like to think that if people were to go through a sufficiently rigorous process to be allowed to carry concealed firearms, that things would be safer, for everyone. Your big bad bravodo idiots in today's society might not be such idiots if they realized that there's a high chance that he'll be shot should he start trouble with someone, even if he's carrying a gun. Think mutually assured destruction. People would have SUCH manners...

[The Heretic Azazel]

Minimizing risks and variables is not achieved by increasing them.

It's especially inane to imply that things could have gone better in this case since the result was the 2nd best case scenario (1st being the guy not offing himself). By all eyewitness reports he was not out to harm anyone.

Keep the guns if you want, but don't try to argue that it would make things any safer.

Sounds like the best case scenario to me, now taxpayers don't have to fund the incarceration of a lunatic.

Allowing concealed carries (and having a competent crisis response team) would have made the Columbine tragedy turn out a lot better than it did.

[Animeniax]

I'd like to think that if people were to go through a sufficiently rigorous process to be allowed to carry concealed firearms, that things would be safer, for everyone. Your big bad bravodo idiots in today's society might not be such idiots if they realized that there's a high chance that he'll be shot should he start trouble with someone, even if he's carrying a gun. Think mutually assured destruction. People would have SUCH manners...

One problem is that in states like Texas, it's not a rigorous process to get your CHL. But rigor is a relative measurement anyway.

[The Heretic Azazel]

Pay to Spray Firefighters Watch A House Burn Down

[Animeniax]

Pay to Spray Firefighters Watch A House Burn Down

He should have paid the fee. What are the odds he doesn't have home-owners insurance?

[darkshadow]

Lol protection money? ;P

[Buffalobiian]

Lol protection money? ;P

Except they don't START a fire if you don't pay up ;P

[Carnage]

Wow what a bunch of douchebags. Proud to be an American.

[Ryllharu]

There are people seriously defending this guy? The headline should read:
"Man tries to cheat the system, gets what he deserves"

The fire department is legally obligated to save human lives even if they don't pay the $75. They've said that repeatedly. After that, they're not going to risk their lives beyond that unless the service has been paid for, through the common fund. The guy tried to offer them whatever it would take to save his house after the fact. But the fire department isn't going to do that because then no one would ever pay the $75. Estimated cost for putting his house out would have been around $11,000. How many people would pay that after the fact? The fire department isn't a collection agency.

I have zero sympathy for someone who tried to gamble and lost, then tries to backpedal as soon as he needs it. It's like a person driving around without auto insurance, then getting into an accident and demanding that a company pay for the totaled car, medical bills, and property damage by paying a single month's premium.

The worst part of this is the dumbass is getting a great deal of support from other idiots, monetarily or otherwise. I bet the federal government will even reach out to help his stupid ass.

[Assertn]

Lol protection money? ;P

It's called insurance.

Yeah, the guy sounds like a mooch, "I just figured they'd help me even if I didn't pay the fee." What's with people and their false sense of entitlement?

[UChessmaster]

That guy got what he deserved, i feel bad for the rest of the family though.

75$ for fire "insurance"? monthly? is it like that in all of US?

Estimated cost for putting his house out would have been around $11,000.

11k for putting the house out? what do they throw at it!?

[Assertn]

That guy got what he deserved, i feel bad for the rest of the family though.

75$ for fire "insurance"? monthly? is it like that in all of US?

No. I had no idea any place in the US had privatized fire safey, or whatever you'd call that. Also where does it say $75 per month?

11k for putting the house out? what do they throw at it!?

That's like saying "$650 for an ambulance ride? What do they fuel it with?"

[Ryllharu]

75$ for fire "insurance"? monthly? is it like that in all of US?

No. I had no idea any place in the US had privatized fire safey, or whatever you'd call that. Also where does it say $75 per month?

No, this is a rare case. Most towns and other rural areas pay taxes (typically property tax), part of those taxes go to fund either volunteer fire departments, or full fire departments. This area of Tennessee voted repeatedly to not have taxes fund a fire dept for over 20 years. They instead pay $75 annually (way lower than my property taxes :/ ) for another municipality's fire dept to put out fires when they occur, and also to cover the emergency rescue of any people.

The US used to have private fire companies. However, at that time, the leading cause of fires was arson...committed by fire companies.

11k for putting the house out? what do they throw at it!?

I've seen a few itemized estimates. Something like (shamelessly pulled from another site):

- 8 firefighters, billed at $200/hour for the duration. If it takes 3 hours of work, that's $4800.
- $5000 for use of the truck.
- $1000 for the water.
- $500 for the call to dispatch.

Grand total: $11,300

[UChessmaster]

Oh, i understand, i thought it was a bit much cause i burned my house once when i was 8, they charged us like... 150 US$

Also where does it say $75 per month?

I sort of assumed that, refusing to pay a one time 75 payment for fire insurance would be kinda dumb, but not paying 75 a month makes a tiny bit more sense, with the economy and all. He should`ve payed the 75 per year...