Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have not read the law because I can't find it on the Internet. However, I would bet that the law is written in such a way that it would be difficult for the insurance company to determine their risk. I know insurance companies depend a lot of actuarial statistics but in this case they would have little to base their assessment of risk because the're so few schools with armed teachers.Requiring that any on-site armed security should be provided by uniformed, qualified law enforcement officers is a pretty reasonable guideline. Now if the school board or state wants to pay a higher premium to get coverage, I'm sure an insurance company would obliged them. However, that would be an admission that putting guns in the hands of poorly trained teachers and administrators is increasing risk, yet the purpose of the law is to reduce risk. This make no sense.You don't get it because you don't WANT to get it.
This is a new kind of animal. How could a responsible Insurance Executive say something like that when there is no history -- None -- Of School District arming Teachers and Custodians.
An intelligent reporter, or even a half-intelligent reader, would arrive at that conclusion without someone having to shove it up your ass.
There is no track record of arming Teachers. None. How can an Insurance Company rate something they have no experience, no claims experience, with?
I try to help out, I try to explain the real world and you just shift into stupid and rev it up until you get to hyper-stupid.
What other kind of 'Armed Security' has there ever been in Schools?
Scary Witches at Halloween?
If the Schools have been using Uniformed Law Enforcement Officers as their Security, then the liability created by any of those Officers, including defending wrongful death, etc lawsuits and criminal charges, falls to the Municipality for whom the Uniformed Officers work.
If the School District decides to arm their own Teachers, then the Insurance Company has no idea how to rate that, how to rate for the additional liability because the liability shifts to the School.
Let me tell all of you something right now -- You don't have to lose a lawsuit to lose a lawsuit.
You can win a lawsuit against you and have to spend a million dollars -- Or more. That ain't a 'win'. And as hot of a potato as this is -- Some scumbag group is going to pray for something to go wrong so they file a huge lawsuit.
When Uniformed LEOs are on the job and you try to sue them? Good luck.
You gotta appear in front of a State Employee Judge, go against State Employee Attorneys, and have State money (yours) spent against you with all the massive resources of the State at their disposal.
The Insurance Company doesn't know how to rate for the inevitable lawsuits.
And as small as EMC Insurance is, they're smart to run away from it.
Let the School Districts self-insure.
The risk is not enormous, the risk is unknown. There is a huge difference between the two and you know it.
Sailing on an merchant ship that is not in a convoy back in 1942 across the atlantic is an enormous risk. See the difference?
Of course the risk is enormous. A handgun which goes off in a classroom does not constitute a risk? We don't know what happens when a 9 mil hollow point enters the body of a 10 year old? Please. There is nothing unknown about this.
My organization has, on average, 3500 vehicles ranging from motorcycles to tractor-trailers. We train our drivers, run annual record checks, and I can tell you within a variance of 5% how many accidents we will have two years from now. I can tell you because I understand that statistically people are going to make mistakes. The more people, the longer they are in the environment, the more likely the mistakes. You arm untrained people and put them in with children on a large scale, it is only a question of how long before someone dies - not if. I would even be able to tell you have many deaths 10 years from now, except that this law is going away after the first funeral.
The possible RESULTS are known. What is unknown is the actual chance of it happening, which is then main component in a risk assesment. By your logic people should be getting shot randomly in the street by police officer's guns going off (because training only reduces the chance of an accident it does not eliminate it). I dont see that in the news that often.
By your logic also, children should sit in thier seats and not move during the school day due to risks of falling, slipping, meteor strikes in the hallway. Your reasoning only uses the worst case scenario without taking into account the freqency of occurance (or overestimating it to suit your agenda).
I'm an engineer, not a professional douche such as yourself. we deal with numbers. Our secrataries deal with words, occasionally spell check.
And if my spelling is the only thing you got as a retort, well you basically have proven by libtard assesment of your intellectual skills.
Go play candyland, or some other activity more in line with your congative abilities.
LOL, Custodial engineer has a secratary . That's rich.
And you're allowed to be a bad speller, but the fact that you're too lazy to even use the spell checker is the part that proves my point.
How about Chemical Engineer dickweed? And spell checks are not worth forum posts, unless this is an english professor's forum, which it is not.
My laziness is a long and trained virtue I have been working on for years.
I'm an engineer, not a professional douche such as yourself. we deal with numbers. Our secrataries deal with words, occasionally spell check.
And if my spelling is the only thing you got as a retort, well you basically have proven by libtard assesment of your intellectual skills.
Go play candyland, or some other activity more in line with your congative abilities.
LOL, Custodial engineer has a secratary . That's rich.
And you're allowed to be a bad speller, but the fact that you're too lazy to even use the spell checker is the part that proves my point.
Most professionals could care less about spelling. They are far too busy to worry about minutia like that. Hell, look at professors emails some time if you want a good laugh. Especially the global warming types, they couldn't spell to save their lives!
LOL, Custodial engineer has a secratary . That's rich.
And you're allowed to be a bad speller, but the fact that you're too lazy to even use the spell checker is the part that proves my point.
Most professionals could care less about spelling. They are far too busy to worry about minutia like that. Hell, look at professors emails some time if you want a good laugh. Especially the global warming types, they couldn't spell to save their lives!
See, the problem is the only global warming material you read is on half-rate blogs written by rednecks who barely achieved their GED. Try reading something by someone with an education and get back to me.
LOL, Custodial engineer has a secratary . That's rich.
And you're allowed to be a bad speller, but the fact that you're too lazy to even use the spell checker is the part that proves my point.
How about Chemical Engineer dickweed? And spell checks are not worth forum posts, unless this is an english professor's forum, which it is not.
My laziness is a long and trained virtue I have been working on for years.
Chemical engineer my ass. LOL! You're WAAAAAY too ignorant and way to lazy to ever have achieved something like a degree in chemical engineering. Hahaha, you actually expect people to believe that shit???
Oh yeah, I'm a professional MMA fighter and Pulitzer Prize winner.
Of course the risk is enormous. A handgun which goes off in a classroom does not constitute a risk? We don't know what happens when a 9 mil hollow point enters the body of a 10 year old? Please. There is nothing unknown about this.
My organization has, on average, 3500 vehicles ranging from motorcycles to tractor-trailers. We train our drivers, run annual record checks, and I can tell you within a variance of 5% how many accidents we will have two years from now. I can tell you because I understand that statistically people are going to make mistakes. The more people, the longer they are in the environment, the more likely the mistakes. You arm untrained people and put them in with children on a large scale, it is only a question of how long before someone dies - not if. I would even be able to tell you have many deaths 10 years from now, except that this law is going away after the first funeral.
The possible RESULTS are known. What is unknown is the actual chance of it happening, which is then main component in a risk assesment. By your logic people should be getting shot randomly in the street by police officer's guns going off (because training only reduces the chance of an accident it does not eliminate it). I dont see that in the news that often.
By your logic also, children should sit in thier seats and not move during the school day due to risks of falling, slipping, meteor strikes in the hallway. Your reasoning only uses the worst case scenario without taking into account the freqency of occurance (or overestimating it to suit your agenda).
Then you are not paying attention to the news. Go on Google, type in 'accidental shooting" and see what you get.
You are free to ignore my reasoning. However, I spent 15 years of my life as an underwriter for insurance companies and I understand exactly what is going on with this coverage. The idea itself is moronic. I am sure it garners votes for politicians, but it does not make children safer. Quite the opposite. It will be repealed after the first major lawsuit when a kid is killed or injured. Not if it happens, when it happens.
The possible RESULTS are known. What is unknown is the actual chance of it happening, which is then main component in a risk assesment. By your logic people should be getting shot randomly in the street by police officer's guns going off (because training only reduces the chance of an accident it does not eliminate it). I dont see that in the news that often.
By your logic also, children should sit in thier seats and not move during the school day due to risks of falling, slipping, meteor strikes in the hallway. Your reasoning only uses the worst case scenario without taking into account the freqency of occurance (or overestimating it to suit your agenda).
Then you are not paying attention to the news. Go on Google, type in 'accidental shooting" and see what you get.
You are free to ignore my reasoning. However, I spent 15 years of my life as an underwriter for insurance companies and I understand exactly what is going on with this coverage. The idea itself is moronic. I am sure it garners votes for politicians, but it does not make children safer. Quite the opposite. It will be repealed after the first major lawsuit when a kid is killed or injured. Not if it happens, when it happens.
most accidental shootings are when someone is cleaning a gun or showing off a gun. when the gun is in the holster, where it would be unless some shit hit the fan, the number of accidental discharges is very small.
Are you saying teachers would be cleaning thier guns, and doing gun tricks while teaching?
Then you are not paying attention to the news. Go on Google, type in 'accidental shooting" and see what you get.
You are free to ignore my reasoning. However, I spent 15 years of my life as an underwriter for insurance companies and I understand exactly what is going on with this coverage. The idea itself is moronic. I am sure it garners votes for politicians, but it does not make children safer. Quite the opposite. It will be repealed after the first major lawsuit when a kid is killed or injured. Not if it happens, when it happens.
most accidental shootings are when someone is cleaning a gun or showing off a gun. when the gun is in the holster, where it would be unless some shit hit the fan, the number of accidental discharges is very small.
Are you saying teachers would be cleaning thier guns, and doing gun tricks while teaching?
No. I'm saying this is a moronic idea. I'm saying people make mistakes and accidents happen. We are not talking about a teacher dropping a book on a kid's glasses. We are talking about accidents involving tools designed to kill. There is no such thing as a minor accident with a gun.
Most elementary school teachers are women. They are not going to wear a holster, they are going to keep the gun in their purse. They are not going to carry their purse while in the classroom, they will set it down. If they have to leave the classroom for any reason, they will either have to take it with them or leave it unattended in a classroom full of children. Are you saying there is no conceivable possibility that a teacher will forget to take it? There is no chance of it at all? I suppose she could lock it in a safe, but then what is the point of her having it?
What you are betting on is that there will be no accidents or mistakes of any kind. Everything will run perfectly and all of the school employees will handle themselves with complete competence. I am betting there will be accidents because there are always accidents. The one truly safe bet is that people will make mistakes. The difference between us is that I have to be wrong all of the time, you only have to be wrong once before a child dies.
most accidental shootings are when someone is cleaning a gun or showing off a gun. when the gun is in the holster, where it would be unless some shit hit the fan, the number of accidental discharges is very small.
Are you saying teachers would be cleaning thier guns, and doing gun tricks while teaching?
No. I'm saying this is a moronic idea. I'm saying people make mistakes and accidents happen. We are not talking about a teacher dropping a book on a kid's glasses. We are talking about accidents involving tools designed to kill. There is no such thing as a minor accident with a gun.
Most elementary school teachers are women. They are not going to wear a holster, they are going to keep the gun in their purse. They are not going to carry their purse while in the classroom, they will set it down. If they have to leave the classroom for any reason, they will either have to take it with them or leave it unattended in a classroom full of children. Are you saying there is no conceivable possibility that a teacher will forget to take it? There is no chance of it at all? I suppose she could lock it in a safe, but then what is the point of her having it?
What you are betting on is that there will be no accidents or mistakes of any kind. Everything will run perfectly and all of the school employees will handle themselves with complete competence. I am betting there will be accidents because there are always accidents. The one truly safe bet is that people will make mistakes. The difference between us is that I have to be wrong all of the time, you only have to be wrong once before a child dies.
Again, by your logic ban all school pools, ban all field trips, ban recess, ban stairs in schools. If you go you go by the "wrong once" standard all of these items have to go.
No. I'm saying this is a moronic idea. I'm saying people make mistakes and accidents happen. We are not talking about a teacher dropping a book on a kid's glasses. We are talking about accidents involving tools designed to kill. There is no such thing as a minor accident with a gun.
Most elementary school teachers are women. They are not going to wear a holster, they are going to keep the gun in their purse. They are not going to carry their purse while in the classroom, they will set it down. If they have to leave the classroom for any reason, they will either have to take it with them or leave it unattended in a classroom full of children. Are you saying there is no conceivable possibility that a teacher will forget to take it? There is no chance of it at all? I suppose she could lock it in a safe, but then what is the point of her having it?
What you are betting on is that there will be no accidents or mistakes of any kind. Everything will run perfectly and all of the school employees will handle themselves with complete competence. I am betting there will be accidents because there are always accidents. The one truly safe bet is that people will make mistakes. The difference between us is that I have to be wrong all of the time, you only have to be wrong once before a child dies.
Again, by your logic ban all school pools, ban all field trips, ban recess, ban stairs in schools. If you go you go by the "wrong once" standard all of these items have to go.
We are talking about gun shot wounds, not boo boos on the playground. If you truly can't grasp that difference, then there is really not point of discussion. So I will only say I fully understand the decision of the insurance carrier. They made the right move because this law makes the school system uninsurable. It is a moronic law and the idea of arming untrained people in a school is pure idiocy. You are free to think what you like, but that does not change the reality. If they go through with this, someone is going to die and no one is going to accept responsibility. They'll repeal the law but that won't bring the kid back.
Again, by your logic ban all school pools, ban all field trips, ban recess, ban stairs in schools. If you go you go by the "wrong once" standard all of these items have to go.
We are talking about gun shot wounds, not boo boos on the playground. If you truly can't grasp that difference, then there is really not point of discussion. So I will only say I fully understand the decision of the insurance carrier. They made the right move because this law makes the school system uninsurable. It is a moronic law and the idea of arming untrained people in a school is pure idiocy. You are free to think what you like, but that does not change the reality. If they go through with this, someone is going to die and no one is going to accept responsibility. They'll repeal the law but that won't bring the kid back.
Drowning in a pool is a "boo-boo?"
We are talking about gun shot wounds, not boo boos on the playground. If you truly can't grasp that difference, then there is really not point of discussion. So I will only say I fully understand the decision of the insurance carrier. They made the right move because this law makes the school system uninsurable. It is a moronic law and the idea of arming untrained people in a school is pure idiocy. You are free to think what you like, but that does not change the reality. If they go through with this, someone is going to die and no one is going to accept responsibility. They'll repeal the law but that won't bring the kid back.
Drowning in a pool is a "boo-boo?"
As I said, we have no point of discussion. You are in a fantasy world populated by John Wayne and Dirty Harry. The insurance underwriter lives in the real world and has based the decisions upon that. You are free to fantasize because you are accepting zero responsibility and have no consequences.
I don't know about elsewhere, but in Florida we have what's called "School Resource Officers". Which are Uniformed Law Enforcement Officers (almost always Sheriff Deputies) in the larger Schools. Almost always High Schools.
In smaller Schools, especially Grade Schools, I'm not aware of a full time LEO being on the premises at all times.
Why should there be? For a few kids, 150-200 tops, putting an LEO there would be kinda expensive. Including his/her pay, the car, benefits, vacations, sick leave, Insurance etc, we're talking around 100k...... Minimum.
And to do what? Arrest little Pratchet for peeing his pants? Again?
Sick fucks like the one in Connecticut aren't going to attack Fort Bragg or Police HQ.
They're cowards. Not gonna happen. What they're going to do is attack the weakest spot they can find -- Unprotected Grade Schools, for example.
If we can't afford it.....??
There are around 1,250 Elementary and Middle Schools in Kansas and at a 100k (minimum) per school to put a Cop there to arrest pee-pants-pratchet, that works out to 125 Million Dollars if my math is correct. Per year.
You can buy a lot of Insurance with that kind of money. You can also self-insure and pay an Insurance Company to Administrate it for you.
Or, you can do like pee-pants-pratchet wants and just let idiots, morons and truly evil people kill our kids.
Or..... You can arm a select number of Teachers, Custodians and Coaches and let it be known that any attempt to kill children will be met with deadly force IMMEDIATELY.
The douche-nozzles that want to kill kids? They'll find somewhere else to make their sick statement.
One thing we know for sure, dimocrap headquarters will be safe
Drowning in a pool is a "boo-boo?"
As I said, we have no point of discussion. You are in a fantasy world populated by John Wayne and Dirty Harry. The insurance underwriter lives in the real world and has based the decisions upon that. You are free to fantasize because you are accepting zero responsibility and have no consequences.
So you dont have a good response, and have now resorted to impinging my opinion, as well as resorting to the old tired "GUNS BAD UNGA BUNGA" line of logic.
Everything has consequences. A good example is idiots calling schools "gun free zones" and then doing nothing to actually assure the area is gun free.
If we trust our citizens out on the streets with a concealed carry weapon, why can't we trust them in a school?
