Insurance and arming teachers

[beatledog7]

Is it really that hard to believe that something could go wrong when you have people carrying guns?

Of course it can. But where a small number of people are carrying concealed, there is very little chance of an ND because nobody there is going to be handling guns (they will be holstered continuously) unless the need to draw on and presumably shoot a bad guy actually occurs. In that case, the district's insurance cost becomes immediately irrelevant, as the real problem of an active shooter supplants it in every way. Such a need is rare in any place, and it is even more rare in places where the possibility exists that a bad guy knows he could would face armed opposition. The shrunken probability of a mass shooting more than offsets the tiny risk of an ND.

Look at gunshows: a place where everyone is expected to have at least basic gun safety knowledge...

In what world is this the case? At every show I've attended, lots of completely untrained people are there handling guns.

...AND all guns are unloaded.

If that were actually true, no ND could even conceivably occur. But plenty of people fib about whether they are carrying a loaded gun, and plenty of dealers goof and let a loaded gun onto the exhibit floor.

Can you honestly say that you've never heard of a ND at a gunshow? What makes you think that there is not even the possibility of something like that happening somewhere like a school?

Another rather weak "proof" that NDs happen and therefore must be expected at a school. There are hundreds of people, many with no training (as I noted above), handling thousands of guns at a gun show. It should not surprise us that NDs occasionally happen there. The school situation, like all CCW situations, is completely different. The risk is not zero, and I never said it was zero. I said it is minuscule, and I explained why that is so.

as soon as you start insuring people carrying guns, the possibility of something going wrong is there and must be covered.

An obvious alternative to an insurer covering NDs and the like would be writing a policy that does not cover any gun-related incident on the part of an employee. Instead, the district would place the liability on that employee personally. Given that carrying a weapon is a personal choice, that makes more sense anyway.

Maybe employees would choose not to carry if the liability was theirs personally, and that's fine. The deterrent value of scrapping the "gun-free" farce and allowing CCW, thereby creating the real possibility that a shooter would face armed opposition, is enough to make him shop elsewhere for a venue. That is the bigger picture.

 

[Mitlov]

An obvious alternative to an insurer covering NDs and the like would be writing a policy that does not cover any gun-related incident on the part of an employee. Instead, the district would place the liability on that employee personally. Given that carrying a weapon is a personal choice, that makes more sense anyway.

Such an agreement would not be enforceable against a third party (like the injured student in a personal injury case). Instead, a defend-and-indemnify agreement would only mean that the school district could cross-claim against the individual teacher for the amount of their exposure. But let's say the plaintiff is awarded $2 million by the jury, and the teacher has $30,000 in unencumbered assets. The teacher loses that $30,000, the teacher declares bankruptcy, and the plaintiff then goes after the school district for the remaining $1,970,000 despite the agreement between the teacher and the school district. That agreement would offer the school district almost no protection whatsoever.

 

[Telekinesis]

Another rather weak "proof" that NDs happen and therefore must be expected at a school.

I'm not making a "proof" of anything. I'm merely saying that with added covered risks come added insurance premiums. That's a very basic tennant of insurance policy underwriting, and is not something you're likely to see ignored. You even agreed that there are risks associated with school employees carring guns. So are you arguing that the insurance company should not receive any compensation for the added risks resulting from the coverage and just eat the costs of any resulting legal actions?

 

[Dean Weingarten]

What you have not mentioned is that it is not one sided. While there is a slight increased risk of ND, there is also a slight decreased risk of mass shooting.

Using your gun show analogy, where are the mass shootings at gun shows?

Insurance companies for schools are not primarily insureing against NDs. They are primarily insuring against liability. Liability can work both ways.

It is not difficult to beleive that a jury could find a school liable for *not* providing for armed teachers, given the research out there that shows how much of an increase in mass school shootings occured after the Federal government encouraged schools to be "gtun free" zones.

Armed teachers in schools not only add a very small risk to an insurers liability coveage, they also decrease it some small amount.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/disastrous-gun-law-sparked-school.html

 

[Mitlov]

Insurance companies insure against lawsuits, not against loss of life. In all the different mass shootings at schools, a school district has never once been successfully sued for not having armed teachers. Not Columbine, not Virginia Tech, not Sandy Hook, not any other. It's simply not a situation where a plaintiff's attorney has ever been able to put together a successful lawsuit. Thus, the increased risk of loss-of-life does not translate to increased risk of liability, and the insurance companies don't factor it in to their valuation of the cost of insuring school districts.

On the other hand, in the case of a negligent or reckless shooting of a student by a teacher, a lawsuit against the district WILL be filed, it WILL be successful, and the verdict WILL be huge.

You're absolutely right that the benefit of armed teachers counterbalances the risk of negligent discharge when you're worrying about loss of human life. But when you're simply worrying about money, not lives--worrying about liability exposure of the school district--it doesn't. That's not fair, it's not right, but it is reality. That's why insurance companies will charge more for districts that allow teachers to be armed as opposed to those that don't.

 

[beatledog7]

Telkinesis,

The big increase in rates, based on the fact that districts are seeking new solutions, seems to be disproportionate to the very slight risk of loss. If the rate increase were in keeping with the increased risk, the districts would more willingly accept it. Can any of these insurers actually demonstrate that their risk is anywhere near as great as the rate increase would indicate?

Mitlov,

You're probably right. In the end the insurance companies will win for the same reasons doctors and plumbers can charge high rates--we have been conditioned to need them and call on them no matter rate they charge.

I realize that I'm outnumbered here and that my position is going to be continually challenged, but I've made my case. Make schools not gun-free, and the baddies will stay away.

The bottom line for me: If my family were in a district where financial risk of allowing CCW outweighed the loss of life risk of not allowing it, I'd send the children to school out of district.

Problem solved.

 

[Dean Weingarten]

See post #46. There is no big increase in rates. Schools are easily finding insurance at *lower* rates while keeping their armed teachers.

The insurance companies that refuse to insure schools with armed teachers are the ones that are going to come out losers in this game.

 

[beatledog7]

Dean, I hope you're right.

 

[blarby]

The insurance companies that refuse to insure schools with armed teachers are the ones that are going to come out losers in this game.

I agree.

Nice thing about the insurance market is that there is ALWAYS someone to take the risk.

In this case, EMC simply doesn't have the appetite for it.

If you want an example of politics and media having an effect on insurance... look at EMC now trying to find a way to keep these policies. THAT is fairly obvious, at least to me.

 

[beatledog7]

EMC must have thought they could raise those rates with impunity.

Surprise!

 

[blarby]

Although, this wouldn't be the first time I've seen a large commercial carrier take a knee-jerk pending cancellation response to a new, higher risk profile........

Followed up by a "softer" response of a potential 20+% rate hike to the insured after they got their attention to the largess of the new risk as stated by the prior cancellation notice.

Sometimes this works, oftentimes it does not.

Depending on the insureds risk type, finding new coverage for a hard to place large risk can be a daunting and time consuming process. In the case of some risks, business cannot continue without liability coverage in place, forcing the insured to bite the financial bullet from the current carrier until a more reasonable solution can be found.

This would not be one of those cases...... which leads me to believe that EMC's response on offering a higher rated policy as a followup was not a calculated underwriting and financial response, but one in response to the ensuing PR nightmare of cancelling coverage of a high profile client embroiled in a national controversy.

 

[mgkdrgn]

"There is a huge difference between a school district "arming teachers" and not restricting the right to carry by teachers. I don't think any school actually provides a gun for teachers."



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/u...achers-to-carry-guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Yes there are schools arming and training teachers. I'm on a school board near this district. We are considering using the same training company. It isn't cheap and it is a lot of training and ongoing training. I have talked with the owner of the company doing the training, they have quite a bit of interest in the program.

How about some great training ... for free?

http://www.frontsightcybercast.com/firearms-training.html

 

[Dean Weingarten]

EMC stands to lose a great deal. They insure 80-90% of the schools in Kansa, and seem to have very "sweet" deals. The three community colleges say they are going to save $200,000 a year, while keeping their armed teachers.

How many independent schools are there in Kansas? 100? 200? 300? EMC could end up losing many millions of dollars in premiums, mostly because of political correctness.

 

[blarby]

I'd say they stand to lose a tidy sum.

I'm not convinced it has anything to do with PC.

It would not be hard to convince me, knowing the industry, that a head team of underwriting honchos blew a collective head gasket when the thought of armed, semi-trained individuals "patrolling" the halls of their "risk space" entered their collective minds.

Having been an U/W, and having been led down some mighty bizarre thought paths by fellow u/w's with enough experience in their positions that mandates me listening to them.... I can visualize this conference amongst them without a lot of imagination.

It would take a lot more evidence ( of which there apparently appears to be little at this stage ) to convince me that this was anything more than an underwriters nightmare come to life and gone completely haywire to the detriment of the company paying the bills.

I've seen it often enough.

You're absolutely right that the benefit of armed teachers counterbalances the risk of negligent discharge when you're worrying about loss of human life. But when you're simply worrying about money, not lives--worrying about liability exposure of the school district--it doesn't. That's not fair, it's not right, but it is reality. That's why insurance companies will charge more for districts that allow teachers to be armed as opposed to those that don't.

^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Dean Weingarten]

It might not be direct PC. My guess is these guys became complacent because they had such a "lock" on insurance in Kansas schools. They just reacted to the new law passage, and that reaction was guided, in part, by the politically correct attitudes that form the heart of "PC".

If they are smart, they are backtracking very fast, before the competition grabs a very large chunk of their "territory".

 

[StorminNormin]

Horrible idea

Arming teachers and/or admins is a horrible idea. I am a teacher (HS) and have a CWP and still believe this. I can sympathize with the insurance cos. Here is why:

1) Schools are big places with large staffs. The cross fire that might occur during a school invasion (or perceived threat) could be worse than what the intruder alone might do.
2) CWP training is not the same everywhere and some folks, permit or no, are horrible marksmen and ill-equipped to carry in a place with kids.
3) Many of the students I teach are significantly larger/stronger than I. It would not be difficult for some students to take guns from some teachers...and there are plenty of kids out there who might try...if only to sell them!
4) Only a matter time before some teacher, somewhere places a gun down to use the restroom and forgets to reholster. If a kid obtained that weapon it is career-over for that teacher. Even more likely for a female teacher who might have a gun in a purse that is not secured.

I'm all for armed professional guards (preferably cops).

Just my .02. I wouldn't want to teach in a such a school...and, again, I'm a gun nut.

 

[dogtown tom]

<-------teacher

StorminNormin

1) Schools are big places with large staffs. The cross fire that might occur during a school invasion (or perceived threat) could be worse than what the intruder alone might do.

Nonsense. Schools are no different than any other public place. Apparently you fear the chance of a "crossfire" more than the mutitudes who would die before police arrive. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

2) CWP training is not the same everywhere and some folks, permit or no, are horrible marksmen and ill-equipped to carry in a place with kids.

Marksmanship has nothing to do with being licensed to carry concealed. Just as teacher certification has nothing to do with subject knowledge or teaching ability. Its a starting point.

3) Many of the students I teach are significantly larger/stronger than I. It would not be difficult for some students to take guns from some teachers...and there are plenty of kids out there who might try...if only to sell them!

Seriously? This is nonsense. If you are afraid that students or anyone else will disarm YOU, DONT freaking carry a gun, a knife or pencil. Find a different job. Continue to be a sheeple and carry a whistle.

4) Only a matter time before some teacher, somewhere places a gun down to use the restroom and forgets to reholster. If a kid obtained that weapon it is career-over for that teacher. Even more likely for a female teacher who might have a gun in a purse that is not secured.

And this can happen with ANYONE, not just teachers. Carrying a firearm is damn serious business. (and a gun in the purse, stored in the teachers locked desk drawer is NOT where it should be)

I'm all for armed professional guards (preferably cops).

So am I. But it isn't realistic to have armed professional guards or cops sitting around every school every day. One guard or police officer is better than none, but neither can watch the office, cafeteria, playground, gymnasium or classrooms all at once.

Just my .02. I wouldn't want to teach in a such a school...and, again, I'm a gun nut.

I'll bet those teachers and staff at Sandy Hook would have had the same view prior to the shooting.

 

[StorminNormin]

Well then. You clearly have more faith in folks than I do. Also, I believe, a poor assessment of the risks vs. benefits involved. But, we are all entitled to our opinions.

 

[oneounceload]

NONE of the proposals addresses the CAUSE. Arming anyone is like putting a bandaid on a severed artery. Until the root causes are addressed and corrected, none of this really matters much

 

[jamesjames]

Lets do the full thought experiment on teachers and concealed carry. The scenario of an active shooter in a hallway full of children and teachers pulling from leather to engage the shooter in a hallway melee of crossfire and wounded children... is unlikely.

First off, hallways are empty during 90% of the school day.

Second, an active shooter in a hallway would tend to clear the hallway in 4 seconds as students and staff take cover in classrooms.

Third, any effective concealed carry gun would be a small .380, .38 special, or pocket 9mm. We are talking 3 inch barrel or shorter. This is a close-quarters, self-defense gun, not a battle rifle or even a government model 1911. Its effective (accurate) range is 7-10 yards. The teacher with a concealed handgun with limited ammo would not take long, low-percentage shots. The teacher with a concealed handgun would be sheltering and protecting their students, and engaging an active shooter only if the shooter forced entry into their classroom. Nobody is going to take a 70-yard shot down a crowded hallway with a snubbie.

Yes, teachers carrying concealed would need lots of training. And yes, they would need training in tactics and shooting scenarios. Only teachers and staff with the proper mindset and discipline would engage in this kind of responsibility. And of course, any gun carried concealed would never come out of the holster on the school premises except in the "gravest extreme" case.

And finally, no, teachers would not wear their concealed carry guns to contract negotiations or disciplinary meetings with supervisors. I think that just about covers it.

 

[StorminNormin]

Here is my logic:
-There are many thousands of schools
-There are relatively few school attacks
-The chances of a school being involved in a school shooter attack is incredibly small
-Wouldn't arming teachers therefore seem to result in a situation where the likelihood for gun related accidents would be greater than that of a school attack taking place?
-Wouldn't that make arming teachers illogical?

...and there will not be rigorous training for teachers who carry! There isn't rigorous funding in many districts for the basics...let alone gun training! And, if a financial incentive was going to be extended to teachers on top of that...why not just station cops in schools to begin with?

**(I'm not insisting on a point here, btw, just arguing the logic out loud)

 

[oneounceload]

^^^^ absolutely right

 

[dogtown tom]

StorminNormin Here is my logic:
-There are many thousands of schools
-There are relatively few school attacks
-The chances of a school being involved in a school shooter attack is incredibly small
-Wouldn't arming teachers therefore seem to result in a situation where the likelihood for gun related accidents would be greater than that of a school attack taking place?
-Wouldn't that make arming teachers illogical?

No more illogical than anyone else carrying a firearm for protection.

...and there will not be rigorous training for teachers who carry!

If rigorous training isn't required for evildoers, why should it be for anyone else. Training is a personal responsibility, not the school districts.

There isn't rigorous funding in many districts for the basics...let alone gun training! And, if a financial incentive was going to be extended to teachers on top of that...why not just station cops in schools to begin with?

Who asked for more $$$ to carry a gun? Not me. All i want is the ability to carry where bad guys already do.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Here is my logic:
-There are many thousands of schools
-There are relatively few school attacks
-The chances of a school being involved in a school shooter attack is incredibly small
-Wouldn't arming teachers therefore seem to result in a situation where the likelihood for gun related accidents would be greater than that of a school attack taking place?
-Wouldn't that make arming teachers illogical?

...and there will not be rigorous training for teachers who carry! There isn't rigorous funding in many districts for the basics...let alone gun training! And, if a financial incentive was going to be extended to teachers on top of that...why not just station cops in schools to begin with?

**(I'm not insisting on a point here, btw, just arguing the logic out loud)

Sooo, your "solution" is allow schools to be "free fire zones" because it doesn't happen very often?

 

[Dean Weingarten]

Here is my logic:
-There are many thousands of schools
-There are relatively few school attacks
-The chances of a school being involved in a school shooter attack is incredibly small
-Wouldn't arming teachers therefore seem to result in a situation where the likelihood for gun related accidents would be greater than that of a school attack taking place?
-Wouldn't that make arming teachers illogical?

There are 8-12 million CCW permits in the United States. There are 600 fatal firearms accidents a year, almost none of them involve people with CCW permits.

So, accidental shootings by CCW permitees are extremely rare.

Virtually all of the school shootings took place in schools where the teachers were known to be unarmed. None took place in schools that allowed armed teachers, such as in Utah.

School shootings have escalated rapidly since the disastrous Gun Free School Zone law was passed and repassed.

What you want to do, is not to create an impervious protection, but rather a perception of doubt about the ability to be a "successfull" mass shooter. That is what deters mass shooters, doubt about success.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/disastrous-gun-law-sparked-school.html