One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
One roadblock to arming teachers: Insurance companies
Page 1 of 2 next>
May 27, 2018 11:47:13   #
alabuck Loc: Tennessee
 
To all of you “gun-nuts” who think that by arming teachers, you have solved the problem of school shootings, read this very interesting article, below. Given that our illustrious and fearless leader, “President “Bone-spurs” Trumpet,” has come out with his proposal of arming teachers, it’s very apparent he didn’t think through all of the ramifications of his “very smart” (since he’s the “... only person who can handle this ... ”) idea. Also, it’s sad that one of his “smartest people/advisors” didn’t think to bring this issue up to him before he opened his mouth; not that he’d let them stop him from doing so, anyway.

WARNING: This article is rather long, so it may not be able to hold most of everyone’s attention, given that your attention spans are seemingly extremely short to begin with. LOL!


One roadblock to arming teachers: Insurance companies 
By Todd C. Frankel
May 26 at 11:13 PM
Washington Post

Kansas has a problem: It has a law allowing teachers to carry guns in the classroom, but almost no schools are using it because insurance companies refuse to provide coverage if they do. As EMC Insurance, the largest insurer of schools in Kansas, explained in a letter to its agents, the company “has concluded that concealed handguns on school premises poses a heightened liability risk.”

Then came the Parkland, Fla., school shooting in February, leading frustrated Republican legislators in Kansas to try forcing the issue with a bill banning “unfair, discriminatory” rates for schools that arm staff. The insurance industry held firm. Last month, the bill failed.

“I don’t think insurance companies are notorious anti-gun liberals,” said Mark Tallman, associate executive director for the Kansas Association of School Boards, “so we think they’ve got good reasons for not doing it.” As proposals to arm teachers sweep across the nation, insurance companies are being forced to weigh the risks of these controversial plans. Some insurers are balking. Some are agreeing to provide policies but lamenting the lack of evidence about whether it makes schools safer — or increases the chances of people getting shot. Others are raising rates. 
“There’s not a lot of carriers that want to insure that risk,” Nate Walker, a senior vice president at insurer AmWINS Group. 

The reaction of insurance companies is notable because they are supposed to evaluate dangers through the dry eye of actuarial science, largely avoiding the heated emotions of the nation’s gun debate, in which one side condemns guns and the other side claims, as Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) did last week, that the best way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.” “But an even better way,” Patrick added, “is four people with a gun to stop that person.”

Insurance companies are not so certain, worried more guns in schools might not only fail to stop mass shootings but lead to more accidents. The epidemic of mass shootings in schools and other public venues has put new pressure on the insurance industry to take a stand. They face huge potential liabilities from these tragedies. The 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where a gunman fatally shot 58 people, could cost insurers more than $1 billion, including potential lawsuits and covering lost business income from the incident and its fallout, according to the International Risk Management Institute.

Schools turn to insurers for liability protection to cover them if there is an accident or someone gets hurts because of negligence. Insurers are always looking for ways to minimize risk. It’s why companies that cover schools send out notices about even small dangers such as the tripping hazards of extension cords or warnings about hanging classroom decorations from ceiling lights.

Adding trained police officers to schools is generally viewed favorably, industry officials say. But giving guns to school janitors or history teachers — even with some training — raises concerns.
“Putting in more resource officers — that’s additional security — we feel that makes it safer,” said Paul Marshall, of McGowan Program Administrators. “It’s different when you start pushing it to arming teachers, volunteers, voluntary security.”

Marshall has a particular interest in ways to prevent school shootings because his company sells “active shooter” insurance policies. It’s a newer line of coverage that has gained popularity as schools look at ways to grapple with the risk of mass shootings on their campuses. The policies pay for counseling services and victim death The 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, when a student gunman killed 32 people and wounded 17 more, cost at least $50 million in security upgrades and lawsuit settlement costs, Marshall said.

More guns make insurers nervous in other situations, too, said Scott Kennedy, president of CCIG, an insurance company in Colorado. He pointed to the common preference among insurers that nightclub bouncers remain unarmed, while off-duty police officers working security are usually allowed to carry firearms.

Reports of teachers caught bringing guns to school reinforce insurers’ concerns. In 2014, a sixth-grade teacher in Utah mistakenly shot a school toilet. No one was injured. Utah allows people with concealed-weapons permits to carry handguns on campus.

Joe Carter, a vice president of United Educators, which specializes in insuring schools, said he frequently hears from insurance executives at industry events worried about whether they will be asked to cover armed teachers and school staff. “I don’t know anyone out there who is ready to offer liability coverage for schools when they’re arming their teachers,” Carter said.

United Educators, based in Bethesda, Md., remains “agnostic” on the topic, Carter said. But it also hasn’t been asked to provide the coverage to any of the nearly 1,600 schools it services.

At least 10 states have laws allowing teachers in some fashion to carry guns on K-12 campuses, according to the Education Commission of the States. And 17 states have considered bills to arm school staff since the Parkland shooting, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Mississippi considered such a bill this year, leading the state’s largest public school district to ask its insurer how much that would cost. “It’s kind of a given that it’d be very, very expensive to arm people,” said Katherine Nelson, spokeswoman for the DeSoto County district. But the bill failed before the district received its cost projection, Nelson said.

In Georgia, Fannin County, this month, became just the second school district in the state to draw up a policy allowing some staff to carry guns, despite the state adopting the law opening the door in 2014. Fannin’s decision was a surprise for the rural district’s insurer, the Georgia School Board Association Risk Management division, which believes the new policy will lead to higher rates but “we won’t know for sure until the actuaries complete their analysis,” an association spokesman said.

Texas appears to have taken the lead on arming teachers, with more than 170 districts opting for policies that allow trained teachers or staff to carry firearms. The school board in Santa Fe, Tex., considered such a policy last year but waited while it looked at training requirements. Some schools are finding coverage through risk pools made up of other schools, allowing local districts to arm teachers “until there is data that the action is risky,” said Ann Gergen, executive director of the Association of Governmental Risk Pools. The issue is so new that there is not an extensive claims history for evaluating the risks. “We don’t know anything,” said Jean Lemaire, a professor of insurance and risk management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.

The states where arming teachers is catching on fastest tend to have strong state immunity laws. That makes it difficult to win large payouts when public employees do something wrong — such as an armed teacher accidentally shooting an innocent child. In these states, insurers might be more willing to cover armed teachers because the potential liability risk is limited.

Texas’s strong state immunity laws are one reason one of the first school districts in the nation to arm staff was the Harrold Independent School District outside Wichita Falls, Tex. The district began its program in 2007. Superintendent David Thweatt said it made sense for his rural district, where the closest sheriff’s deputy could be 30 minutes away. Thweatt said he hears from other districts struggling to find insurance. “I would argue you’re probably going to be lowering the risk rather than raising it,” Thweatt said. 

Kansas, in comparison, does not have strong state immunity laws. Kansas passed its law arming teachers in 2013, after the mass shooting the previous year in Newtown, Conn., where a gunman killed 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That immediately led EMC Insurance to announce it would rather exit the school insurance market than cover armed teachers and staff. Republican lawmakers were upset but couldn’t find another insurer willing to take on the policies. Tallman, with the school board association in Kansas, said that’s partly because most school boards are not interested in arming teachers. It’s an idea being pushed by politicians, not educators.

After the Parkland shooting, Republican Kansas state Rep. Blake Carpenter joined a small group of legislators convinced that the insurance industry was standing in the way of a popular idea. Carpenter said insurance concerns were being used “as an excuse, a scapegoat.” But their bill to force coverage failed. EMC Insurance, based in Des Moines, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Ken Trump, a school safety expert, said insurance companies can sometimes be too conservative in assessing risks, but he agreed with the industry’s reluctance to support the move toward armed teachers. “It may be well intended,” Trump said, “but it is not well thought out.”

Reply
May 27, 2018 11:55:02   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
alabuck wrote:
To all of you “gun-nuts” who think that by arming teachers, you have solved the problem of school shootings, read this very interesting article, below. Given that our illustrious and fearless leader, “President “Bone-spurs” Trumpet,” has come out with his proposal of arming teachers, it’s very apparent he didn’t think through all of the ramifications of his “very smart” (since he’s the “... only person who can handle this ... ”) idea. Also, it’s sad that one of his “smartest people/advisors” didn’t think to bring this issue up to him before he opened his mouth; not that he’d let them stop him from doing so, anyway.

WARNING: This article is rather long, so it may not be able to hold most of everyone’s attention, given that your attention spans are seemingly extremely short to begin with. LOL!


One roadblock to arming teachers: Insurance companies 
By Todd C. Frankel
May 26 at 11:13 PM
Washington Post

Kansas has a problem: It has a law allowing teachers to carry guns in the classroom, but almost no schools are using it because insurance companies refuse to provide coverage if they do. As EMC Insurance, the largest insurer of schools in Kansas, explained in a letter to its agents, the company “has concluded that concealed handguns on school premises poses a heightened liability risk.”

Then came the Parkland, Fla., school shooting in February, leading frustrated Republican legislators in Kansas to try forcing the issue with a bill banning “unfair, discriminatory” rates for schools that arm staff. The insurance industry held firm. Last month, the bill failed.

“I don’t think insurance companies are notorious anti-gun liberals,” said Mark Tallman, associate executive director for the Kansas Association of School Boards, “so we think they’ve got good reasons for not doing it.” As proposals to arm teachers sweep across the nation, insurance companies are being forced to weigh the risks of these controversial plans. Some insurers are balking. Some are agreeing to provide policies but lamenting the lack of evidence about whether it makes schools safer — or increases the chances of people getting shot. Others are raising rates. 
“There’s not a lot of carriers that want to insure that risk,” Nate Walker, a senior vice president at insurer AmWINS Group. 

The reaction of insurance companies is notable because they are supposed to evaluate dangers through the dry eye of actuarial science, largely avoiding the heated emotions of the nation’s gun debate, in which one side condemns guns and the other side claims, as Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) did last week, that the best way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.” “But an even better way,” Patrick added, “is four people with a gun to stop that person.”

Insurance companies are not so certain, worried more guns in schools might not only fail to stop mass shootings but lead to more accidents. The epidemic of mass shootings in schools and other public venues has put new pressure on the insurance industry to take a stand. They face huge potential liabilities from these tragedies. The 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where a gunman fatally shot 58 people, could cost insurers more than $1 billion, including potential lawsuits and covering lost business income from the incident and its fallout, according to the International Risk Management Institute.

Schools turn to insurers for liability protection to cover them if there is an accident or someone gets hurts because of negligence. Insurers are always looking for ways to minimize risk. It’s why companies that cover schools send out notices about even small dangers such as the tripping hazards of extension cords or warnings about hanging classroom decorations from ceiling lights.

Adding trained police officers to schools is generally viewed favorably, industry officials say. But giving guns to school janitors or history teachers — even with some training — raises concerns.
“Putting in more resource officers — that’s additional security — we feel that makes it safer,” said Paul Marshall, of McGowan Program Administrators. “It’s different when you start pushing it to arming teachers, volunteers, voluntary security.”

Marshall has a particular interest in ways to prevent school shootings because his company sells “active shooter” insurance policies. It’s a newer line of coverage that has gained popularity as schools look at ways to grapple with the risk of mass shootings on their campuses. The policies pay for counseling services and victim death The 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, when a student gunman killed 32 people and wounded 17 more, cost at least $50 million in security upgrades and lawsuit settlement costs, Marshall said.

More guns make insurers nervous in other situations, too, said Scott Kennedy, president of CCIG, an insurance company in Colorado. He pointed to the common preference among insurers that nightclub bouncers remain unarmed, while off-duty police officers working security are usually allowed to carry firearms.

Reports of teachers caught bringing guns to school reinforce insurers’ concerns. In 2014, a sixth-grade teacher in Utah mistakenly shot a school toilet. No one was injured. Utah allows people with concealed-weapons permits to carry handguns on campus.

Joe Carter, a vice president of United Educators, which specializes in insuring schools, said he frequently hears from insurance executives at industry events worried about whether they will be asked to cover armed teachers and school staff. “I don’t know anyone out there who is ready to offer liability coverage for schools when they’re arming their teachers,” Carter said.

United Educators, based in Bethesda, Md., remains “agnostic” on the topic, Carter said. But it also hasn’t been asked to provide the coverage to any of the nearly 1,600 schools it services.

At least 10 states have laws allowing teachers in some fashion to carry guns on K-12 campuses, according to the Education Commission of the States. And 17 states have considered bills to arm school staff since the Parkland shooting, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Mississippi considered such a bill this year, leading the state’s largest public school district to ask its insurer how much that would cost. “It’s kind of a given that it’d be very, very expensive to arm people,” said Katherine Nelson, spokeswoman for the DeSoto County district. But the bill failed before the district received its cost projection, Nelson said.

In Georgia, Fannin County, this month, became just the second school district in the state to draw up a policy allowing some staff to carry guns, despite the state adopting the law opening the door in 2014. Fannin’s decision was a surprise for the rural district’s insurer, the Georgia School Board Association Risk Management division, which believes the new policy will lead to higher rates but “we won’t know for sure until the actuaries complete their analysis,” an association spokesman said.

Texas appears to have taken the lead on arming teachers, with more than 170 districts opting for policies that allow trained teachers or staff to carry firearms. The school board in Santa Fe, Tex., considered such a policy last year but waited while it looked at training requirements. Some schools are finding coverage through risk pools made up of other schools, allowing local districts to arm teachers “until there is data that the action is risky,” said Ann Gergen, executive director of the Association of Governmental Risk Pools. The issue is so new that there is not an extensive claims history for evaluating the risks. “We don’t know anything,” said Jean Lemaire, a professor of insurance and risk management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.

The states where arming teachers is catching on fastest tend to have strong state immunity laws. That makes it difficult to win large payouts when public employees do something wrong — such as an armed teacher accidentally shooting an innocent child. In these states, insurers might be more willing to cover armed teachers because the potential liability risk is limited.

Texas’s strong state immunity laws are one reason one of the first school districts in the nation to arm staff was the Harrold Independent School District outside Wichita Falls, Tex. The district began its program in 2007. Superintendent David Thweatt said it made sense for his rural district, where the closest sheriff’s deputy could be 30 minutes away. Thweatt said he hears from other districts struggling to find insurance. “I would argue you’re probably going to be lowering the risk rather than raising it,” Thweatt said. 

Kansas, in comparison, does not have strong state immunity laws. Kansas passed its law arming teachers in 2013, after the mass shooting the previous year in Newtown, Conn., where a gunman killed 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That immediately led EMC Insurance to announce it would rather exit the school insurance market than cover armed teachers and staff. Republican lawmakers were upset but couldn’t find another insurer willing to take on the policies. Tallman, with the school board association in Kansas, said that’s partly because most school boards are not interested in arming teachers. It’s an idea being pushed by politicians, not educators.

After the Parkland shooting, Republican Kansas state Rep. Blake Carpenter joined a small group of legislators convinced that the insurance industry was standing in the way of a popular idea. Carpenter said insurance concerns were being used “as an excuse, a scapegoat.” But their bill to force coverage failed. EMC Insurance, based in Des Moines, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Ken Trump, a school safety expert, said insurance companies can sometimes be too conservative in assessing risks, but he agreed with the industry’s reluctance to support the move toward armed teachers. “It may be well intended,” Trump said, “but it is not well thought out.”
To all of you “gun-nuts” who think that by arming ... (show quote)


The thing about insurance companies is that they never actually believe what they, themselves say, about risks. They just say crap like that as an excuse to raise premiums. Did you eve wonder why they use credit reports to help determine risk for auto ins policies and rates??

One remedy, give schools immunity. Some already have it. If you slip and fall in those schools buildings, you are SOL as far as sing the district is concerned.

Reply
May 27, 2018 11:59:29   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
Good, informative article, Alabuck. Yet, once again, the 'bean-counters' enter and dominate the debate.

Reply
 
 
May 27, 2018 13:41:49   #
archie bunker Loc: Texas
 
slatten49 wrote:
Good, informative article, Alabuck. Yet, once again, the 'bean-counters' enter and dominate the debate.


Yeah.....the money counters.
Personally, I don't understand why this is such a huge issue with people other than the dislike of firearms. I mean, if no one other than those who are armed, and certain administrators know they are armed, how can it create a fearful environment?
Our politicians, celebrities, and money are all protected with guns. Why not our kids?

Reply
May 27, 2018 13:47:28   #
Kevyn
 
alabuck wrote:
To all of you “gun-nuts” who think that by arming teachers, you have solved the problem of school shootings, read this very interesting article, below. Given that our illustrious and fearless leader, “President “Bone-spurs” Trumpet,” has come out with his proposal of arming teachers, it’s very apparent he didn’t think through all of the ramifications of his “very smart” (since he’s the “... only person who can handle this ... ”) idea. Also, it’s sad that one of his “smartest people/advisors” didn’t think to bring this issue up to him before he opened his mouth; not that he’d let them stop him from doing so, anyway.

WARNING: This article is rather long, so it may not be able to hold most of everyone’s attention, given that your attention spans are seemingly extremely short to begin with. LOL!


One roadblock to arming teachers: Insurance companies 
By Todd C. Frankel
May 26 at 11:13 PM
Washington Post

Kansas has a problem: It has a law allowing teachers to carry guns in the classroom, but almost no schools are using it because insurance companies refuse to provide coverage if they do. As EMC Insurance, the largest insurer of schools in Kansas, explained in a letter to its agents, the company “has concluded that concealed handguns on school premises poses a heightened liability risk.”

Then came the Parkland, Fla., school shooting in February, leading frustrated Republican legislators in Kansas to try forcing the issue with a bill banning “unfair, discriminatory” rates for schools that arm staff. The insurance industry held firm. Last month, the bill failed.

“I don’t think insurance companies are notorious anti-gun liberals,” said Mark Tallman, associate executive director for the Kansas Association of School Boards, “so we think they’ve got good reasons for not doing it.” As proposals to arm teachers sweep across the nation, insurance companies are being forced to weigh the risks of these controversial plans. Some insurers are balking. Some are agreeing to provide policies but lamenting the lack of evidence about whether it makes schools safer — or increases the chances of people getting shot. Others are raising rates. 
“There’s not a lot of carriers that want to insure that risk,” Nate Walker, a senior vice president at insurer AmWINS Group. 

The reaction of insurance companies is notable because they are supposed to evaluate dangers through the dry eye of actuarial science, largely avoiding the heated emotions of the nation’s gun debate, in which one side condemns guns and the other side claims, as Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) did last week, that the best way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.” “But an even better way,” Patrick added, “is four people with a gun to stop that person.”

Insurance companies are not so certain, worried more guns in schools might not only fail to stop mass shootings but lead to more accidents. The epidemic of mass shootings in schools and other public venues has put new pressure on the insurance industry to take a stand. They face huge potential liabilities from these tragedies. The 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where a gunman fatally shot 58 people, could cost insurers more than $1 billion, including potential lawsuits and covering lost business income from the incident and its fallout, according to the International Risk Management Institute.

Schools turn to insurers for liability protection to cover them if there is an accident or someone gets hurts because of negligence. Insurers are always looking for ways to minimize risk. It’s why companies that cover schools send out notices about even small dangers such as the tripping hazards of extension cords or warnings about hanging classroom decorations from ceiling lights.

Adding trained police officers to schools is generally viewed favorably, industry officials say. But giving guns to school janitors or history teachers — even with some training — raises concerns.
“Putting in more resource officers — that’s additional security — we feel that makes it safer,” said Paul Marshall, of McGowan Program Administrators. “It’s different when you start pushing it to arming teachers, volunteers, voluntary security.”

Marshall has a particular interest in ways to prevent school shootings because his company sells “active shooter” insurance policies. It’s a newer line of coverage that has gained popularity as schools look at ways to grapple with the risk of mass shootings on their campuses. The policies pay for counseling services and victim death The 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, when a student gunman killed 32 people and wounded 17 more, cost at least $50 million in security upgrades and lawsuit settlement costs, Marshall said.

More guns make insurers nervous in other situations, too, said Scott Kennedy, president of CCIG, an insurance company in Colorado. He pointed to the common preference among insurers that nightclub bouncers remain unarmed, while off-duty police officers working security are usually allowed to carry firearms.

Reports of teachers caught bringing guns to school reinforce insurers’ concerns. In 2014, a sixth-grade teacher in Utah mistakenly shot a school toilet. No one was injured. Utah allows people with concealed-weapons permits to carry handguns on campus.

Joe Carter, a vice president of United Educators, which specializes in insuring schools, said he frequently hears from insurance executives at industry events worried about whether they will be asked to cover armed teachers and school staff. “I don’t know anyone out there who is ready to offer liability coverage for schools when they’re arming their teachers,” Carter said.

United Educators, based in Bethesda, Md., remains “agnostic” on the topic, Carter said. But it also hasn’t been asked to provide the coverage to any of the nearly 1,600 schools it services.

At least 10 states have laws allowing teachers in some fashion to carry guns on K-12 campuses, according to the Education Commission of the States. And 17 states have considered bills to arm school staff since the Parkland shooting, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Mississippi considered such a bill this year, leading the state’s largest public school district to ask its insurer how much that would cost. “It’s kind of a given that it’d be very, very expensive to arm people,” said Katherine Nelson, spokeswoman for the DeSoto County district. But the bill failed before the district received its cost projection, Nelson said.

In Georgia, Fannin County, this month, became just the second school district in the state to draw up a policy allowing some staff to carry guns, despite the state adopting the law opening the door in 2014. Fannin’s decision was a surprise for the rural district’s insurer, the Georgia School Board Association Risk Management division, which believes the new policy will lead to higher rates but “we won’t know for sure until the actuaries complete their analysis,” an association spokesman said.

Texas appears to have taken the lead on arming teachers, with more than 170 districts opting for policies that allow trained teachers or staff to carry firearms. The school board in Santa Fe, Tex., considered such a policy last year but waited while it looked at training requirements. Some schools are finding coverage through risk pools made up of other schools, allowing local districts to arm teachers “until there is data that the action is risky,” said Ann Gergen, executive director of the Association of Governmental Risk Pools. The issue is so new that there is not an extensive claims history for evaluating the risks. “We don’t know anything,” said Jean Lemaire, a professor of insurance and risk management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.

The states where arming teachers is catching on fastest tend to have strong state immunity laws. That makes it difficult to win large payouts when public employees do something wrong — such as an armed teacher accidentally shooting an innocent child. In these states, insurers might be more willing to cover armed teachers because the potential liability risk is limited.

Texas’s strong state immunity laws are one reason one of the first school districts in the nation to arm staff was the Harrold Independent School District outside Wichita Falls, Tex. The district began its program in 2007. Superintendent David Thweatt said it made sense for his rural district, where the closest sheriff’s deputy could be 30 minutes away. Thweatt said he hears from other districts struggling to find insurance. “I would argue you’re probably going to be lowering the risk rather than raising it,” Thweatt said. 

Kansas, in comparison, does not have strong state immunity laws. Kansas passed its law arming teachers in 2013, after the mass shooting the previous year in Newtown, Conn., where a gunman killed 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That immediately led EMC Insurance to announce it would rather exit the school insurance market than cover armed teachers and staff. Republican lawmakers were upset but couldn’t find another insurer willing to take on the policies. Tallman, with the school board association in Kansas, said that’s partly because most school boards are not interested in arming teachers. It’s an idea being pushed by politicians, not educators.

After the Parkland shooting, Republican Kansas state Rep. Blake Carpenter joined a small group of legislators convinced that the insurance industry was standing in the way of a popular idea. Carpenter said insurance concerns were being used “as an excuse, a scapegoat.” But their bill to force coverage failed. EMC Insurance, based in Des Moines, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Ken Trump, a school safety expert, said insurance companies can sometimes be too conservative in assessing risks, but he agreed with the industry’s reluctance to support the move toward armed teachers. “It may be well intended,” Trump said, “but it is not well thought out.”
To all of you “gun-nuts” who think that by arming ... (show quote)

Insurance companies determine risk based on actuarial tables. If arming school personnel reduced liability and risk they would be completely behind arming teachers.

Reply
May 27, 2018 14:38:26   #
archie bunker Loc: Texas
 
Kevyn wrote:
Insurance companies determine risk based on actuarial tables. If arming school personnel reduced liability and risk they would be completely behind arming teachers.


Annnnnnnndddddddddd......the expert on EVERYTHING chimes in........

Reply
May 27, 2018 14:39:00   #
pafret Loc: Northeast
 
Kevyn wrote:
Insurance companies determine risk based on actuarial tables. If arming school personnel reduced liability and risk they would be completely behind arming teachers.


Absent any armed teacher populations just how are the actuarial tables supposed to get data on the effect of such populations?

Reply
 
 
May 27, 2018 14:40:38   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Kevyn wrote:
Insurance companies determine risk based on actuarial tables. If arming school personnel reduced liability and risk they would be completely behind arming teachers.


It's never been researched so therre are no tables on it. However, a look at Israeli schools will provide ll you need to know.

Reply
May 27, 2018 17:39:15   #
alabuck Loc: Tennessee
 
archie bunker wrote:
Yeah.....the money counters.
Personally, I don't understand why this is such a huge issue with people other than the dislike of firearms. I mean, if no one other than those who are armed, and certain administrators know they are armed, how can it create a fearful environment?
Our politicians, celebrities, and money are all protected with guns. Why not our kids?


——————

Archie,
The day the Sante Fe shootings occurred, I was substitute teaching at our local detention/alternative school. While walking a student to the restroom, I happened upon the SRO (sheriff’s deputy) for that school. I asked him his thoughts about arming teachers and other school administrators to help against school shootings. He said he, as well as the sheriff and the entire county police force, as well as the entire city police force, thought it was a “VERY BAD idea.”

He went on to say that in most school shootings that have occurred, the SRO’s were among the first to be targeted by the shooters. Also, once the alarm has been sounded and other police units begin arriving at the scene, should these “other people who are allowed to carry at the school” have their weapons drawn, those newly arrived police officers have no way of knowing who is a “bad guy with a gun,” or who is a “good guy with a gun.” To them, anyone they see with a gun, be it a kid or and adult, is going to be considered a target to shoot at. All questions regarding who has permission to carry in the school are to be asked AFTER the shooting has stopped. Let that soak-in for a bit and imagine the “pictures of carnage” in your head. How many more would’ve had to die just because the police didn’t know who was “permitted to carry” and who wasn’t.

He also said that letting some people carry, concealed or open, in the schools wasn’t going to be kept a secret very long. That, “... these kids are smart enough to figure out who has a weapon and who doesn’t, in a very short period of time.” Add to that, h said, “... once it was known who had a firearm, how long would it be before someone slipped-up and had their weapon stolen by one of these kids? Then, you now you have the issue of a student being armed with a stolen gun. Add to that, should the kid decide to sell it, for all practical purposes, it’s gone for good; and not in a ‘good way.’”

As I think we’ve discussed before, I own several weapons, including an AR, an AK, and several pistols and revolvers of various calibers. I simply enjoy blowing-up targets. So, I’m not exactly someone who is “anti-gun.” I DO detest the NRA and everything it has become. But, no, I’m not anti-gun.

I’m in favor of tighter restrictions on gun owners. I believe someone who has a CCP should be allowed to CC in any state (reciprocity rules) and that the Feds should enforce who can obtain a CCP.

We need to tighten our background checks to get rid of the “gun show loophole.” Any “private sale” should include a trip to the local police office to fill out a “transfer of ownership form.” It should be just like when we sell our vehicles to another person, we need to go to the courthouse to finalize the transfer of ownership and do a title search, or, in this case, a search to see if the weapon is stolen or has been reported as having been used in the commission of a crime. Given the circumstances of today’s world, why should firearms be treated any differently that our vehicles? And, don’t come back with the “its too much of a burden to put on law-abiding citizens.” If you don’t mind going through the same procedure for a car purchase, why complain about it if buying a gun? Guns are specifically designed to maim and kill. Vehicles aren’t. As such, we need to treat firearms just as rough as we treat non-lethal items, if not more so.

Along that same vein, most all states require one to have “proof of insurance” in order to drive a vehicle on the streets. I believe gun owners should be required to obtain “liability insurance” to cover themselves against acts committed by people who use the owner’s firearms in the commission of a crime, unless the weapon had been reported stolen BEFORE crime was committed. Another reason for liability insurance for gun owners would be in case of an accidental injury caused by an act of carelessness by the gun owner. As an example, while showing. Someone their pistol, the owner failed to properly unload the gun and left one in the chamber. While handling the gun, the owner accidentally shot the visitor. Insurance could help cover the undoubtedly impending medical expenses, if not help out with any court action that may result from the carelessness of the handler. (It may be that the visitor shoots the gun-owner while handling the firearm, too.)

More food for thought, is all my post is, Archie. This issue won’t be solved by us. It’ll take some hard action on the part of our elected representatives to hammer out a solution.

My only hope is that the NRA isn’t allowed a seat at the table. They’ll try to turn it into a “political cluster-f**k” just to get people all stirred-up over the lies from the NRA, like, “the government is taking away our guns!” That simply ain’t happening. No matter how many times the NRA tells that lie, it’s still a lie.

Take care,

Alabuck

Reply
May 27, 2018 17:47:47   #
alabuck Loc: Tennessee
 
slatten49 wrote:
Good, informative article, Alabuck. Yet, once again, the 'bean-counters' enter and dominate the debate.


————-

True dat, Slat! It’s unfortunate, but, they’ve embedded themselves into most every aspect of our lives, already.

Reply
May 27, 2018 17:59:30   #
alabuck Loc: Tennessee
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
The thing about insurance companies is that they never actually believe what they, themselves say, about risks. They just say crap like that as an excuse to raise premiums. Did you eve wonder why they use credit reports to help determine risk for auto ins policies and rates??

One remedy, give schools immunity. Some already have it. If you slip and fall in those schools buildings, you are SOL as far as sing the district is concerned.


——————-


Your idea about ‘immunity’ sounds like one that needs further investigation.

As someone who, years ago, had their insurance policy cancelled because of a low credit score, I was told that the lower the credit score, the less likely one was going to pay their premiums and/or maintain the policy. Additionally, I was told that, “oftentimes, people only got a policy, paid 1st month’s premium, then, let the policy expire for non-payment AFTER they received their insurance cards, since the cards state they’re good for 6 months.”

It’s the people trying to ‘beat the system’ that can hurt the rest of us.

Reply
 
 
May 27, 2018 21:17:41   #
PeterS
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
The thing about insurance companies is that they never actually believe what they, themselves say, about risks. They just say crap like that as an excuse to raise premiums. Did you eve wonder why they use credit reports to help determine risk for auto ins policies and rates??

One remedy, give schools immunity. Some already have it. If you slip and fall in those schools buildings, you are SOL as far as sing the district is concerned.


Immunity applies only to schools not to employees. Teachers already have to carry general liability so it they are armed it is only going to drive the cost up. Who pays for it, the teacher or the school district. My wife teaches so I know the answer is always going to be the teacher.

Reply
May 27, 2018 21:31:01   #
PeterS
 
archie bunker wrote:
Yeah.....the money counters.
Personally, I don't understand why this is such a huge issue with people other than the dislike of firearms. I mean, if no one other than those who are armed, and certain administrators know they are armed, how can it create a fearful environment?
Our politicians, celebrities, and money are all protected with guns. Why not our kids?

Because it's the teachers who are going to have to fork out the extra cash for higher premiums on their liability insurance. So yes, it the money counters--my wife makes 65K a year and almost half of that goes to insurance--insurance whose premiums increases via her contract are suppose to be covered yearly yet somehow aren't. Every school has at least one SRO. Make certain they are armed and well trained to stop school shooters. It was Santa Fe's SRO who engaged and stopped the shooter. That and the fact that the shooter didn't have a semi auto kept the count down. Since I know damn well my fellow Texans won't pay a penny more in taxes to cover a teachers added expenses then make sure the SRO's are trained and equipped to stop school shooters!

Reply
May 28, 2018 08:16:09   #
archie bunker Loc: Texas
 
alabuck wrote:
——————

Archie,
The day the Sante Fe shootings occurred, I was substitute teaching at our local detention/alternative school. While walking a student to the restroom, I happened upon the SRO (sheriff’s deputy) for that school. I asked him his thoughts about arming teachers and other school administrators to help against school shootings. He said he, as well as the sheriff and the entire county police force, as well as the entire city police force, thought it was a “VERY BAD idea.”

He went on to say that in most school shootings that have occurred, the SRO’s were among the first to be targeted by the shooters. Also, once the alarm has been sounded and other police units begin arriving at the scene, should these “other people who are allowed to carry at the school” have their weapons drawn, those newly arrived police officers have no way of knowing who is a “bad guy with a gun,” or who is a “good guy with a gun.” To them, anyone they see with a gun, be it a kid or and adult, is going to be considered a target to shoot at. All questions regarding who has permission to carry in the school are to be asked AFTER the shooting has stopped. Let that soak-in for a bit and imagine the “pictures of carnage” in your head. How many more would’ve had to die just because the police didn’t know who was “permitted to carry” and who wasn’t.

He also said that letting some people carry, concealed or open, in the schools wasn’t going to be kept a secret very long. That, “... these kids are smart enough to figure out who has a weapon and who doesn’t, in a very short period of time.” Add to that, h said, “... once it was known who had a firearm, how long would it be before someone slipped-up and had their weapon stolen by one of these kids? Then, you now you have the issue of a student being armed with a stolen gun. Add to that, should the kid decide to sell it, for all practical purposes, it’s gone for good; and not in a ‘good way.’”

As I think we’ve discussed before, I own several weapons, including an AR, an AK, and several pistols and revolvers of various calibers. I simply enjoy blowing-up targets. So, I’m not exactly someone who is “anti-gun.” I DO detest the NRA and everything it has become. But, no, I’m not anti-gun.

I’m in favor of tighter restrictions on gun owners. I believe someone who has a CCP should be allowed to CC in any state (reciprocity rules) and that the Feds should enforce who can obtain a CCP.

We need to tighten our background checks to get rid of the “gun show loophole.” Any “private sale” should include a trip to the local police office to fill out a “transfer of ownership form.” It should be just like when we sell our vehicles to another person, we need to go to the courthouse to finalize the transfer of ownership and do a title search, or, in this case, a search to see if the weapon is stolen or has been reported as having been used in the commission of a crime. Given the circumstances of today’s world, why should firearms be treated any differently that our vehicles? And, don’t come back with the “its too much of a burden to put on law-abiding citizens.” If you don’t mind going through the same procedure for a car purchase, why complain about it if buying a gun? Guns are specifically designed to maim and kill. Vehicles aren’t. As such, we need to treat firearms just as rough as we treat non-lethal items, if not more so.

Along that same vein, most all states require one to have “proof of insurance” in order to drive a vehicle on the streets. I believe gun owners should be required to obtain “liability insurance” to cover themselves against acts committed by people who use the owner’s firearms in the commission of a crime, unless the weapon had been reported stolen BEFORE crime was committed. Another reason for liability insurance for gun owners would be in case of an accidental injury caused by an act of carelessness by the gun owner. As an example, while showing. Someone their pistol, the owner failed to properly unload the gun and left one in the chamber. While handling the gun, the owner accidentally shot the visitor. Insurance could help cover the undoubtedly impending medical expenses, if not help out with any court action that may result from the carelessness of the handler. (It may be that the visitor shoots the gun-owner while handling the firearm, too.)

More food for thought, is all my post is, Archie. This issue won’t be solved by us. It’ll take some hard action on the part of our elected representatives to hammer out a solution.

My only hope is that the NRA isn’t allowed a seat at the table. They’ll try to turn it into a “political cluster-f**k” just to get people all stirred-up over the lies from the NRA, like, “the government is taking away our guns!” That simply ain’t happening. No matter how many times the NRA tells that lie, it’s still a lie.

Take care,

Alabuck
—————— br br Archie, br The day the Sante Fe shoo... (show quote)


You're right. Lots of food for thought here. I can agree with some, and disagree with some, but it doesn't matter, because we can't fix it.
But (you know there always is one) just for shots and giggles, I'll give you the NRA if you'll give me either the ACLU, or the NAACP.😆

Reply
May 28, 2018 10:09:04   #
TrueAmerican
 
alabuck wrote:
To all of you “gun-nuts” who think that by arming teachers, you have solved the problem of school shootings, read this very interesting article, below. Given that our illustrious and fearless leader, “President “Bone-spurs” Trumpet,” has come out with his proposal of arming teachers, it’s very apparent he didn’t think through all of the ramifications of his “very smart” (since he’s the “... only person who can handle this ... ”) idea. Also, it’s sad that one of his “smartest people/advisors” didn’t think to bring this issue up to him before he opened his mouth; not that he’d let them stop him from doing so, anyway.

WARNING: This article is rather long, so it may not be able to hold most of everyone’s attention, given that your attention spans are seemingly extremely short to begin with. LOL!


One roadblock to arming teachers: Insurance companies 
By Todd C. Frankel
May 26 at 11:13 PM
Washington Post

Kansas has a problem: It has a law allowing teachers to carry guns in the classroom, but almost no schools are using it because insurance companies refuse to provide coverage if they do. As EMC Insurance, the largest insurer of schools in Kansas, explained in a letter to its agents, the company “has concluded that concealed handguns on school premises poses a heightened liability risk.”

Then came the Parkland, Fla., school shooting in February, leading frustrated Republican legislators in Kansas to try forcing the issue with a bill banning “unfair, discriminatory” rates for schools that arm staff. The insurance industry held firm. Last month, the bill failed.

“I don’t think insurance companies are notorious anti-gun liberals,” said Mark Tallman, associate executive director for the Kansas Association of School Boards, “so we think they’ve got good reasons for not doing it.” As proposals to arm teachers sweep across the nation, insurance companies are being forced to weigh the risks of these controversial plans. Some insurers are balking. Some are agreeing to provide policies but lamenting the lack of evidence about whether it makes schools safer — or increases the chances of people getting shot. Others are raising rates. 
“There’s not a lot of carriers that want to insure that risk,” Nate Walker, a senior vice president at insurer AmWINS Group. 

The reaction of insurance companies is notable because they are supposed to evaluate dangers through the dry eye of actuarial science, largely avoiding the heated emotions of the nation’s gun debate, in which one side condemns guns and the other side claims, as Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) did last week, that the best way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.” “But an even better way,” Patrick added, “is four people with a gun to stop that person.”

Insurance companies are not so certain, worried more guns in schools might not only fail to stop mass shootings but lead to more accidents. The epidemic of mass shootings in schools and other public venues has put new pressure on the insurance industry to take a stand. They face huge potential liabilities from these tragedies. The 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where a gunman fatally shot 58 people, could cost insurers more than $1 billion, including potential lawsuits and covering lost business income from the incident and its fallout, according to the International Risk Management Institute.

Schools turn to insurers for liability protection to cover them if there is an accident or someone gets hurts because of negligence. Insurers are always looking for ways to minimize risk. It’s why companies that cover schools send out notices about even small dangers such as the tripping hazards of extension cords or warnings about hanging classroom decorations from ceiling lights.

Adding trained police officers to schools is generally viewed favorably, industry officials say. But giving guns to school janitors or history teachers — even with some training — raises concerns.
“Putting in more resource officers — that’s additional security — we feel that makes it safer,” said Paul Marshall, of McGowan Program Administrators. “It’s different when you start pushing it to arming teachers, volunteers, voluntary security.”

Marshall has a particular interest in ways to prevent school shootings because his company sells “active shooter” insurance policies. It’s a newer line of coverage that has gained popularity as schools look at ways to grapple with the risk of mass shootings on their campuses. The policies pay for counseling services and victim death The 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, when a student gunman killed 32 people and wounded 17 more, cost at least $50 million in security upgrades and lawsuit settlement costs, Marshall said.

More guns make insurers nervous in other situations, too, said Scott Kennedy, president of CCIG, an insurance company in Colorado. He pointed to the common preference among insurers that nightclub bouncers remain unarmed, while off-duty police officers working security are usually allowed to carry firearms.

Reports of teachers caught bringing guns to school reinforce insurers’ concerns. In 2014, a sixth-grade teacher in Utah mistakenly shot a school toilet. No one was injured. Utah allows people with concealed-weapons permits to carry handguns on campus.

Joe Carter, a vice president of United Educators, which specializes in insuring schools, said he frequently hears from insurance executives at industry events worried about whether they will be asked to cover armed teachers and school staff. “I don’t know anyone out there who is ready to offer liability coverage for schools when they’re arming their teachers,” Carter said.

United Educators, based in Bethesda, Md., remains “agnostic” on the topic, Carter said. But it also hasn’t been asked to provide the coverage to any of the nearly 1,600 schools it services.

At least 10 states have laws allowing teachers in some fashion to carry guns on K-12 campuses, according to the Education Commission of the States. And 17 states have considered bills to arm school staff since the Parkland shooting, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Mississippi considered such a bill this year, leading the state’s largest public school district to ask its insurer how much that would cost. “It’s kind of a given that it’d be very, very expensive to arm people,” said Katherine Nelson, spokeswoman for the DeSoto County district. But the bill failed before the district received its cost projection, Nelson said.

In Georgia, Fannin County, this month, became just the second school district in the state to draw up a policy allowing some staff to carry guns, despite the state adopting the law opening the door in 2014. Fannin’s decision was a surprise for the rural district’s insurer, the Georgia School Board Association Risk Management division, which believes the new policy will lead to higher rates but “we won’t know for sure until the actuaries complete their analysis,” an association spokesman said.

Texas appears to have taken the lead on arming teachers, with more than 170 districts opting for policies that allow trained teachers or staff to carry firearms. The school board in Santa Fe, Tex., considered such a policy last year but waited while it looked at training requirements. Some schools are finding coverage through risk pools made up of other schools, allowing local districts to arm teachers “until there is data that the action is risky,” said Ann Gergen, executive director of the Association of Governmental Risk Pools. The issue is so new that there is not an extensive claims history for evaluating the risks. “We don’t know anything,” said Jean Lemaire, a professor of insurance and risk management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.

The states where arming teachers is catching on fastest tend to have strong state immunity laws. That makes it difficult to win large payouts when public employees do something wrong — such as an armed teacher accidentally shooting an innocent child. In these states, insurers might be more willing to cover armed teachers because the potential liability risk is limited.

Texas’s strong state immunity laws are one reason one of the first school districts in the nation to arm staff was the Harrold Independent School District outside Wichita Falls, Tex. The district began its program in 2007. Superintendent David Thweatt said it made sense for his rural district, where the closest sheriff’s deputy could be 30 minutes away. Thweatt said he hears from other districts struggling to find insurance. “I would argue you’re probably going to be lowering the risk rather than raising it,” Thweatt said. 

Kansas, in comparison, does not have strong state immunity laws. Kansas passed its law arming teachers in 2013, after the mass shooting the previous year in Newtown, Conn., where a gunman killed 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That immediately led EMC Insurance to announce it would rather exit the school insurance market than cover armed teachers and staff. Republican lawmakers were upset but couldn’t find another insurer willing to take on the policies. Tallman, with the school board association in Kansas, said that’s partly because most school boards are not interested in arming teachers. It’s an idea being pushed by politicians, not educators.

After the Parkland shooting, Republican Kansas state Rep. Blake Carpenter joined a small group of legislators convinced that the insurance industry was standing in the way of a popular idea. Carpenter said insurance concerns were being used “as an excuse, a scapegoat.” But their bill to force coverage failed. EMC Insurance, based in Des Moines, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Ken Trump, a school safety expert, said insurance companies can sometimes be too conservative in assessing risks, but he agreed with the industry’s reluctance to support the move toward armed teachers. “It may be well intended,” Trump said, “but it is not well thought out.”
To all of you “gun-nuts” who think that by arming ... (show quote)


Well as the old saying goes better to be judged by 12 of my peers than to be carried by six of my friends !!!!!!

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.