Insurance and arming teachers

[denton]

There is no need to speculate about what might happen if school staff has the right to be armed. We have two real-world examples that tell us exactly what does happen.

In Israel, school employees who want a side arm are issued one by the Israeli government. It has greatly reduced the number of terrorist attacks against schools there. Once, schools were a favorite target. Not so much anymore. And the research I've done hasn't turned up any cases of negligent discharges or students accidentally shot by teachers.

Here in Utah, we have many years of experience with school employees being authorized to carry concealed on the job. So far:

No negligent discharges.

No accidental student shootings.

No students getting control of an employee's firearm.

No mass schools shootings.

A couple of the local concealed carry operations offered free training to school employees about a year ago, and were totally swamped.

The sample is large enough to have some meaning. Yes, we should be careful with firearms. But, no, having school employees voluntarily carry does not produce the problems that some predict.

Go where the data take you.

 

[beatledog7]

Dean and denton are right on this.

-- No data that says having legally armed citizens results in increased accidental shootings, gun snatching, etc.

-- Plenty of data that says even the potential that someone will be armed and willing to confront a shooter deters shooters.

It's easy for some people to get nervous and dream up worst case scenarios about crossfire and the like, but that argument would apply to any and all defensive carry. If you oppose allowing school personnel to make the choice for themselves, then why aren't you opposed to allowing everyone to make that choice for themselves, anywhere and everywhere. Are schools really so different?

The key point remains that mass shooters nearly always select gun-free zones as their targets, and the single best deterrence against them is eliminating that gun-free zone silliness.

 

[blarby]

All of which is fantastic discussion either way.

However the discussion at hand was Insurance and Arming teachers, if I recall- not yea or nay on arming teachers.

That said, armed teachers, or armed anybody for that matter is not a zero risk proposition as its offered up.

Everytime someone steadfastly states that it is, and that their personal gun handling is so good that nothing could ever, ever happen.... this is always the first thing that comes to mind. And we all know that every teacher who is going to carry has far more firearms handling experience than this poor sap.

It may be low risk, but its certainly not no risk. If it truly was no risk, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Unfortunately insurance companies do not give merit badges for protecting children, as has already been stated. What they do actually provide is coverage against risk- the dollar amount of which is obviously still in quite the center of its debate cycle.

 

[StorminNormin]

^exactly. The risk associated the gun related accidents and thefts in a school with unarmed staff is close to zero. Risk in an armed school is naturally significantly higher. Considering the chances of a school attack are incredibly remote there is no logical reason to assume the risk. And yes, this argument works the same for general CC!

 

[beatledog7]

Risk in an armed school is naturally significantly higher.

Data on this? Proof of this? What is your definition of "significantly"?

I disagree that this assertion is true. If it were true in a school it would be true everywhere, and it has not been shown to be true anywhere, let alone everywhere.

I agree that the risk is not zero, but should we encourage insurers to ask for big rate increases whenever a new wrinkle adds a minimal but not zero risk?

Boosting liability rates because someone might be legally carrying is like boosting homeowner rates for someone who has ammo on hand or reloads ammo; both are knee-kerk, emotional, politically-driven decisions. The risk of damage or injury from such items is not zero, but it is far lower than from a tank of bottled gas on a grill; however, one's policy rate doesn't jump when he purchases a fancy new Weber. Why? The grill carries no political baggage.

 

[JShirley]

The correct and defensible weapons policy for any business is that "employees will obey state and local weapons laws on the premises". That's it.

John

 

[blarby]

but it is far lower than from a tank of bottled gas on a grill; however, one's policy rate doesn't jump when he purchases a fancy new Weber. Why? The grill carries no political baggage.

Actually, wrong.

The type and size of cooking appliances in and around a home can increase the rates of homeowners insurance coverage.

Many major players in the HO market want to know exactly how many, what type, and the energy rating of bottled gas appliances that are part of your household.

According to one major carrier, an average of 7 of their households per summer manage to set all or part of the primary structure on fire to the extent that a claim is submitted- from outdoor cooking appliances.

If you watched the superbowl, you probably saw one version of that statistic........

So can pools, and in some cases * oh my gosh* so can having guns.


In all actuality- if you can think of an event or item that might trigger an insurance company to raise a rate- I'm fairly certain that I can find a company that can and does.

Thats how the insurance market partially stays afloat- not every insurer looks at every risk the same way. If they did, we wouldn't need multitudes of insurance companies, we'd just need one. Be glad that it works this way, because I enjoy the freedom to choose from carriers that align with my ideology and desired level of service for the premium dollars I wish to spend. Your needs and wants and dollars may differ, and you are free to choose a carrier of your liking.

You might not agree with the fact that underwriting classifies and rates risks based on their - right or wrong- perceived exposure, but dangit thats how it works. I'm sorry if this is heartwrenchingly shocking news to you. *hands a tissue to help absorb the shock*
I don't argue with gravity, or fire, or any of a myriad of truths I've come to loathe- I simply work around them to the best of my ability. I think everyone should do the same- but hey, thats just one guy.

 

[Dean Weingarten]

Of course, you are correct. Hopefully, experience and the market will sort it all out. It appears that schools that are willing to have armed teachers are finding it easy to buy insurance at lower rates than EMC had for schools without armed teachers.

 

[beatledog7]

According to one major carrier, an average of 7 of their households per summer manage to set all or part of the primary structure on fire to the extent that a claim is submitted- from outdoor cooking appliances.

OK, if that's true then I was possibly less than fully correct about that piece. How many claims from fires caused by reloading activities and ammo storage?

 

[blarby]

I agree completely.

ID also vote that weve pretty much come full circle, unless the mods or anyone else has any key ifo to add.......

 

[106rr]

Cost increase

It seems to me that insurance companies are taking every opportunity to raise rates. Please note that in Kansas and many other states, there is little or no competition in the specialty insurance market. In schools where an active shooter was stopped by a staffer with a gun, the rates did not drop despite the savings.
Just one guys opinion.

 

[blarby]

How many claims from fires caused by reloading activities and ammo storage?

I'll look into that one.

I have no data !

I know of at least one, and there are photos of it here on THR somewhere.

But thats all of one that I know of.

 

[horsemen61]

I for one am pro teachers carrying on campus and I would have signs at every door saying so if they were allowed to reason that makes a mighty big deterrent to anybody who wants to shoot up a school

 

[Reloadron]

This ran in yesterday's paper here in Cleveland.

Something interesting is that The Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper is an extremely liberal rag and very anti-gun. Note the headline:

Edgewood schools OK gun-toting administrators

This could have been worded:

Edgewood Schools Approve Concealed Handgun Carry for School Administrators. If you read the article you will see where it smacks of bias.

Ron

 

[Kim]

The Schools in Clarksville Arkansas are arming some staff this year. Front page news story with colored pictures of staff training at the school ran. Local police supporting and training. No push back from the public or insurance company that I have heard about.

 

[mdauben]

The type and size of cooking appliances in and around a home can increase the rates of homeowners insurance coverage.

I would bow to your superior inside knowledge of the insurance industry on this, but I have to say in over 40 years of buying renters and home owners insurance, I was never asked if I had a gas grill in the premises. In addition, the only thing I was ever asked about firearms was if I needed a rider to insure more than the $X worth coverd for loss by the basic policy.

According to one major carrier, an average of 7 of their households per summer manage to set all or part of the primary structure on fire to the extent that a claim is submitted- from outdoor cooking appliances.

Seven? And that's out of how many tens or even hundreds of thousands of policies? I don't think anyone can seriously claim that the presense of either gas grills or firearms creates zero additional risk. The evidence presented so far, though, seems to support that the additional risk is quite minimal, and certainly does not seem to support major increases in insurance rates, if the political and emotional aspects of the issue are ignored.

 

[PavePusher]

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.

"might", "could", "Only a matter time", "Even more likely".

Please let us know what school you teach in. It's quite obvious you are unfamiliar with facts, evidence and critical thinking, so I want to keep my kids far, far away from you.

If you want to continue this conversation, pleace cite to ten instances, under any circumstances, where Citizens shooting in lawful defense have made a situation worse than the criminal they were defending against.

 

[PavePusher]

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)

Short translation, the current casualty level is acceptable.

Uh.... NO.

 

[PapaGrune]

with police department's having to ferlow officers, reduced staff I would think police officers for schools might be a tough sell. Cities going into bankruptcy, I expect a tax base to afford paid staff not there. The school districts in Texas must not have experienced large insurance rate increases. My wife works at one of the very large universities and can now carry guns in her car. Not on campus this year. Next session that should pass, if they just focus on faculty and staff. She would carry. I do not think their insurance rates will go up. They will not know who is, if any one does. Many antis will not.

sent from inside the fire tornado

Ith

 

[hso]

No surprise there.

Underwriters would consider it a great liability vs. the actual miniscule chance that a school shooting would take place. The teachers are employees and any accident or negligence on their part that resulted in an injury or death would be the school's responsibility whereas the behavior of a criminal unaffiliated with the school holds no liability. The cold light of risk calculations points to the absurdity of worrying about mass shootings at schools.

 

[beatledog7]

It is true that there is a very low probability that there will be a shooting at any given school, but it can be made even lower.

There are virtually zero outbreaks of violence among lawful gun owners who happen to be carrying are present. It doesn't happen in gun show parking lots, at ranges, or in any place where some people are simply lawfully carrying concealed. There is NOTHING to suggest that it would be any different in a school.

There is, however, a pile of evidence that mass shooters and gang shooters alike most often seek their prey in places where law-abiding citizen must disarm. That alone makes the case for making schools NOT gun-free, thereby allowing faculty and staff to carry and thus creating doubt in the mind of a potential mass shooter. I didn't say arming them; I said simply allowing them the choice of carrying and making it known to all that they are allowed to be and therefore might be armed. As I already noted, mass shooters don't hatch their plots in such places.

Insurers may try to say that potentially having people carrying on the premises raises their risk of having to pay a claim, but until they can demonstrate some statistics that bear that out, school boards should simply fire them and find a carrier who's rational in its assessment. If there is such a great risk in a school, why wouldn't underwriters for many other types of facilities treat those establishments similarly?

I remain convinced that this push by insurers is political, not "actuarial"

 

[hso]

The whole mass shooting at school issue is statistically insignificant. It is a hyped horror used by the media to get attention and for Antis to use to scare the public. We play into their hands by validating their scare tactics blowing the risk far out of proportion. We insist that the claims of Antis that mass school shootings are a significant risk are bogus and unsupported by facts and then turn around and insist that the risk is actually significant enough to arm school staff. We can't have it both ways and yet we moan and complain when fact based arguments against schools arming staff are made by professionals and insurance companies assessing the risk.

There either is a statistically significant risk as the Antis claim or there isn't a statistically significant risk as the 2A, law enforcement, and insurance companies claim. We can't deny the numbers to oppose the Antis and then embrace the root cause reasoning they've used to serve our own purpose.

 

[49er]

I am a high school biology teacher that has been issued a G19 by my school district. I do not know of any insurance issues that have been caused by this policy. I believe that if rates would have increased significantly then the policy allowing us to be armed wound not have been implemented. The firearms will not be carried on our person, but located in a biometrical safe. Possibly this is what kept us from not incurring a significant increase in premiums.