Arming Teachers - School Insurance Policies

[45acpForMe]

I came across this article about insurance companies banning policies to schools that allow teachers/administrators to arm themselves according to new state laws. This is a different angle on the subject because the private business is causing the repression of gun rights. Typically we allow a private business to dictate whether they allow guns on premises based on property rights. So this is a different slant on that argument in that we can't force a company to insure someone..... maybe we should apply some Obamacare rules to school insurance companies!?! http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/insurance-company-boycotts-schools-that-arm-teachers/

 

[skidmark]

The free market will provide.

Amen!

Schools will probably find out that it is actually less expensive to self insure, and that when self insured there is a reduction in behavior that could lead to liability and a big payout. (Most folks do not want to end up being laid off because the system must pay a settlement instead of having money for salaries. They figure it out very quickly.)

And for the systems that do not want to go to self insured? Ever hear of insurance pools?

One company's action will not cause an immediate cascade within the industry. Rather, I suspect, everybody will sit back and see if schols are willing to pay an increasec premium and if so how much more.

stay safe.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

A private company does not generally "repress" one's rights. an insurance company operates by the numbers. the company probably had a study done showing that more likely then not more people would be injured if teachers were armed and therefore more likely they'll be paying out claims. if they think they're more likely to pay out a claim they either increase your premiums or refuse to insure you. the insurance company doesn't have to work for free....

Arming teachers is a horrible idea anyway. If I owned an insurance company and a school bought a policy from me and started handing out pistols to staff I'd at the very least double my premiums charged to the school. especially if they have umbrella coverage for legal proceedings. there never actually has to be any shot. is little jimmy upset that he got an F on his algebra test? bam now Mr. Garrison "pulled his gun from the desk when i was talking to him alone and intimidated me and I have mental unrest and PTSD from this threat" and now the school will settle with the kid's family with my companies money....


this is entirely expected....

 

[beebobby]

Maybe a good niche market for the NRA to get into. They could lobby for the gun manufacturers and their ins. group.

 

[ron73440]

A private company does not generally "repress" one's rights. an insurance company operates by the numbers. the company probably had a study done showing that more likely then not more people would be injured if teachers were armed and therefore more likely they'll be paying out claims. if they think they're more likely to pay out a claim they either increase your premiums or refuse to insure you. the insurance company doesn't have to work for free....

Arming teachers is a horrible idea anyway. If I owned an insurance company and a school bought a policy from me and started handing out pistols to staff I'd at the very least double my premiums charged to the school. especially if they have umbrella coverage for legal proceedings. there never actually has to be any shot. is little jimmy upset that he got an F on his algebra test? bam now Mr. Garrison "pulled his gun from the desk when i was talking to him alone and intimidated me and I have mental unrest and PTSD from this threat" and now the school will settle with the kid's family with my companies money....


this is entirely expected....

You sound like an anti " OH MY GOD, PEOPLE HAVE GUNS, THERE"LL BE BLOOD IN THE STREETS!!!"

 

[Grapeshot]

A private company does not generally "repress" one's rights. an insurance company operates by the numbers. the company probably had a study done showing that more likely then not more people would be injured if teachers were armed and therefore more likely they'll be paying out claims. if they think they're more likely to pay out a claim they either increase your premiums or refuse to insure you. the insurance company doesn't have to work for free....

Arming teachers is a horrible idea anyway. If I owned an insurance company and a school bought a policy from me and started handing out pistols to staff I'd at the very least double my premiums charged to the school. especially if they have umbrella coverage for legal proceedings. there never actually has to be any shot. is little jimmy upset that he got an F on his algebra test? bam now Mr. Garrison "pulled his gun from the desk when i was talking to him alone and intimidated me and I have mental unrest and PTSD from this threat" and now the school will settle with the kid's family with my companies money....

this is entirely expected....

Kept looking for some indication/affirmation of sarcasm in your post - didn't find it. The tone would seem not unlike what I would expect from an anti.

Actuaries and the insurance company bean counters pool their efforts to predict at what rate they will have a satisfactory return. IMHO - there is an adequate amount of data w/o imposing too many limitations that such actions would reduce injuries and claims for damages. Most frequently such liability policies include a clause that the insured not be in violation of any point of law creating or substantially contributing to the action.

I have in the past, when actively instructing for the state, carried a rather substantial liability policy that included such clauses. It was very moderate in cost.

Also my home owners insurance covers loss for all perils on any guns of below a set value and below a total aggregate value, but the premium on my liability coverage did not go up one cent. These things are hardly uncharted territory for insurance companies.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You sound like an anti " OH MY GOD, PEOPLE HAVE GUNS, THERE"LL BE BLOOD IN THE STREETS!!!"

No, that's not what I stated. I stated it will be an insurance nightmare due to claims of injury or intimidation as a result of guns. teachers are not indemnified in the same way cops are.

and when you hand out a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail. teachers do not undergo the same level of background screening as cops do.

Which brings up the real reason I don't think teachers should be routinely armed, because there's a difference between personal protection and institutional protection. when you carry a gun, you're objective is to protect yourself. you may be able to assist other people, but you're under no obligation to protect anyone, at least legally speaking. you may be morally or religiously or ethically obligated, but not legally or administratively obligated.

When you hand out guns to someone with the intent on protecting people and assets other then themselves, that's a different idea altogether. then you need to make sure these people aren't whackadoodles or their employer is liable when they shoot someone or draw down on someone, you need to ensure that they have appropriate training or the institution is liable when someone gets hurt. is a teaching certificate going to grant the authority to carry a firearm outside of campus? if yes then if they shoot someone off of campus on personal time with company tools, the institution can still be held liable in someway. if a student steals the gun and the teacher is punished, now the teacher's union may file for arbitration stating the teacher wasn't given adequate training in firearm retention, or unions may use this as fodder for extra pay to compensate their members for "extra duties" as well as the extra licesnes and certs they'll no doubt be required to obtain due to liability issues now that they're functioning as quasi security.

School shootings are so incredibly rare that it's waste of our taxpayer dollars to make a solution to a rare problem that will cause more problems then the solution, if the school wants to hire Allied Barton to put armed guards in the school, great, if the school wants to arm certain staff members like custodians or administrators that's ok as well. if the school board decides to arm teachers... their call. the gun community doesn't need to push this as a panacea solution.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Kept looking for some indication/affirmation of sarcasm in your post - didn't find it. The tone would seem not unlike what I would expect from an anti.

Actuaries and the insurance company bean counters pool their efforts to predict at what rate they will have a satisfactory return. IMHO - there is an adequate amount of data w/o imposing too many limitations that such actions would reduce injuries and claims for damages. Most frequently such liability policies include a clause that the insured not be in violation of any point of law creating or substantially contributing to the action.

I have in the past, when actively instructing for the state, carried a rather substantial liability policy that included such clauses. It was very moderate in cost.

Also my home owners insurance covers loss for all perils on any guns of below a set value and below a total aggregate value, but the premium on my liability coverage did not go up one cent. These things are hardly uncharted territory for insurance companies.

you don't think this will create fertile ground for sharks who consider their local government an ATM machine? you have more faith in humanity then I, you're a good man Grape, there is no sarcasm there period, I really sincerely mean it.

I don't think that... I've worked for a friend who owns rental property. he's in the middle of a tenant dispute right now where the insurance agent outright told him it would be easier just to pay off this tenants fradulant claim then to fight it...

 

[Grapeshot]

you don't think this will create fertile ground for sharks who consider their local government an ATM machine? you have more faith in humanity then I, you're a good man Grape, there is no sarcasm there period, I really sincerely mean it.

I don't think that... I've worked for a friend who owns rental property. he's in the middle of a tenant dispute right now where the insurance agent outright told him it would be easier just to pay off this tenants fradulant claim then to fight it...

There would be no need for the state or municipalities to certify or approve any staff to carry a gun. Simply remove the restriction against it. Private enterprise has in some cases offered to instruct school personnel at no charge. At the very least the teachers and staff could exercise the RKBA inside schools as they now do outside - they are the same people no matter where they are standing.

I agree that mass shootings are not on the rise, still you will note that when they do occur they most frequently happen in GFZs. I don't see teachers being required to defend the students - for that matter police officers are not so mandated. There have been numerous documented incidences of a gun in the hands of a good person thwarting the goals of a criminal.

A numbers of universities and some school systems already allow firearms to one level or another. Have their insurance rates increased? I don't know, but doubt by much if at all.

Recently at the VaGOP state convention, we were told our pushing our right to legally carry at that venue had caused the party to have to pay an additional $30K for 2 days of insurance. When we pushed the issue and asked to see the policy, clause, or rider, we were met with a lot of wella/I meana/that is/hmmph.....but no disclosure, none, zip, nada.

I'm a little perplexed by your friends situation with his rental property. If the loss/claim is covered by his policy legitimately, then the burden is not on his back. Should the carrier chose to pay off on what they suspect is a fraudulent claim, that is their choice and their expense - must be a very small nuisance claim though.

Most municipalities self-insure using their tax based income to cover claims/awards.

IMHO - the more and greater access to guns, especially daily carry, the greater the reduction in crime against people. It has been said that there are but two ways to handle a confrontation: logically w/words or with force. Please keep both options on the table when that moment of need arises.

 

[mpguy]

If it's such a insurance nightmare, then why not a resource officer?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[EMNofSeattle]

If it's such a insurance nightmare, then why not a resource officer?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

what do you mean?

do you mean "why is a resource officer different then teaching staff"? if so then because school resource officers are generally always commissioned police officers who have qualified immunity for good faith actions and all kinds of state sponsored training....

if you mean "why not use resource officers instead of armed teachers" I think schools should have more resource officers. But it doesn't need to be a cop. a regular security guard or custodian could carry as well. I don't like the idea of teaching staff being armed because i think it's nothing but a chance for students to get even by claiming the staff member pulled a gun on them or whatever, in addition to the fact I think having to keep track of a gun distracts from their primary role.

Administrators and custodians who have secure areas available to secure firearsm and don't directly interact with students full time, I have no problem with them carrying firearms as long as the local school board (not some unelected beaurocrat, but the actual elected school board) authorizes it....

 

[EMNofSeattle]

There would be no need for the state or municipalities to certify or approve any staff to carry a gun. Simply remove the restriction against it. Private enterprise has in some cases offered to instruct school personnel at no charge. At the very least the teachers and staff could exercise the RKBA inside schools as they now do outside - they are the same people no matter where they are standing.

most states I believe already allow staff to carry guns so long as the school board approves it. I have no issue with this. but i think a decision about this subject should be made by local school boards....

I agree that mass shootings are not on the rise, still you will note that when they do occur they most frequently happen in GFZs. I don't see teachers being required to defend the students - for that matter police officers are not so mandated. There have been numerous documented incidences of a gun in the hands of a good person thwarting the goals of a criminal.

Yes and Yes but are criminals targetting schools because of the gun free zone? or are they just choosing where they know the news vans will roll to after the gunfire stops? it's true that most shootings happen in places posted as "no guns" but is that due to the no guns policy, or is it because places posted "no guns" are usually always either government property or somewhere where alot of people are congregated together? I don't think private citizens should have to disarm upon entering schools, but claiming the gun free school zone laws and regulations are the reason we have school shootings is to me... just as much of a stretch as claiming that legal gun owners are the reason for shootings...

Yes police are not mandated, but find me any officers willing to say "i'm just going to let the littleuns die because the supreme says I can" not many police officers are like that...

A numbers of universities and some school systems already allow firearms to one level or another. Have their insurance rates increased? I don't know, but doubt by much if at all.

And most all of them have to by law. ad states like Oregon, Utah and Michigan and Colorado in the case of colleges, allow private citizens to carry guns (actually my community college does not forbid adjunct faculty from carrying firearms either.... or at least they didn't use to, then the college newspaper made a stink about how their safety was at risk from adjunct professors carrying guns... :banghead as opposed to staff being encouraged to carry guns... much different when you're paying someone holding a gun then a mere visitor.

Recently at the VaGOP state convention, we were told our pushing our right to legally carry at that venue had caused the party to have to pay an additional $30K for 2 days of insurance. When we pushed the issue and asked to see the policy, clause, or rider, we were met with a lot of wella/I meana/that is/hmmph.....but no disclosure, none, zip, nada.

Doesn't shock me, but they're private property so it's not a direct comparison...

I'm a little perplexed by your friends situation with his rental property. If the loss/claim is covered by his policy legitimately, then the burden is not on his back. Should the carrier chose to pay off on what they suspect is a fraudulent claim, that is their choice and their expense - must be a very small nuisance claim though.

I don't want to discuss it further since I'm borderline involved in collecting evidence and don't want to undermine my friend's position if this ever ends up in court... but I'll just say that if you knew all the circumstances, you'd know very well this joker is just gaming the system. the friend doesn't want the insurance company to pay out and increase his premiums...

Most municipalities self-insure using their tax based income to cover claims/awards.

IMHO - the more and greater access to guns, especially daily carry, the greater the reduction in crime against people. It has been said that there are but two ways to handle a confrontation: logically w/words or with force. Please keep both options on the table when that moment of need arises.

I dont disagree... but I think there is such a thing as too many guns. and before someone accuses me of being an anti again, I'm not talking about "americans own one gun per person or there's too many guns in circulation"

I think that if you have a situation where there is alot of people with guns in one place, in a group not militarily organized who doesn't immediately recognize who isn't and is the bad guy. every single person armed begins to create liability. at a rally in Olympia we had a few jokers, one had an AR pistol on a sling, another have a micro uzi looking pistol and mr micro uzi was sweeping the crowd of armed people in front of him finger on trigger until a state trooper went and talked to him. but imagine if some guy had decided to "act in self defense" and gun shots started ringing out in a crowd of about 500 armed people plus about a dozen state patrol officers? I'm actually very upset the troopers didn't charge him and relieve him of his firearm.

Again, I know that this has never actually been a problem to date, but just because something has not been a problem in the past doesn't mean it can't become one.

I also want to say one last time, these are my personal concerns. I in no way advocate government restriction on an individual person or group of persons who want to protect themselves.... if you want to carry a rifle, do so, wanna open carry, great! wanna conceal and carry? knock yourself out...

but institutional security being paid to provide protection, is something that I believe needs some level of regulation, versus an individual protecting themselves.....

 

[45acpForMe]

Emn???

Emn you seem to bring up all sorts of strawman arguments. (forgive the formatting since the editor here sucks)
" handing out pistols to staff " Where in the lunch line? No one is going to hand out pistols. Utah already allows teachers to carry provided they get the right training. Not many mass shootings in Utah schools.
" little jimmy upset that he got an F on his algebra test? bam now Mr. Garrison "pulled his gun from the desk when i was talking to him alone and intimidated me and I have mental unrest and PTSD from this threat " and now the school will settle with the kid's family with my companies money...." Really? Most schools that allow carry permit it as concealed. If a teacher pulled out a gun he would need a darn good reason or would face jail time for brandishing. Again how many lawsuits have you heard about (and you WOULD hear about them from the lame-stream-media) that have had teachers brandishing weapons in Utah? What about that Texas county that allows teachers to carry?
"I stated it will be an insurance nightmare due to claims of injury or intimidation as a result of guns." This is a blood in the streets argument... again real life teachers carrying hasn't demonstrated ANY such lawsuits.
"When you hand out guns to someone..." There you go again stating a false fact that handguns would just be willy nilly handed out to anyone including the mentally/emotionally deficient teachers. Where I have read about teachers being armed they are required to pass certain tests and training.
"School shootings are so incredibly rare..." in a way that is true but the gun-free-zone body count continues to rise in leaps and bounds! Schools are just one area where the government has declared a gun free zone. Declaring a school a gun free zone does nothing to protect the people in that school!
"what do you mean? do you mean "why is a resource officer " Did you read the article where some schools were getting around the restrictions about arming teachers/administrators by declaring them school security officers?
"A similar concern about student safety developed in neighboring Colorado, with one rural school board responding by giving two of its top administrators new job titles – security officer.
The move in Dove Creek in the southwest corner of the state has turned the tiny town into a model for other Colorado school districts looking to get around laws that allow only peace and security officers to pack heat in schools. A legislative effort that would have changed that and put guns in the hands of Colorado schoolteachers died in committee earlier this year.
The security officer contracts were approved by the board at a February meeting. Each will be paid $1 a year for their officer duties to make the deal legitimate."

"most shootings happen in places posted as "no guns" but is that due to the no guns policy" Yes it is! Police have changed their tactics for an Active Shooter scenario because the shooter is most likely to 1) stop attacking innocents when engaged and 2) may commit suicide when challenged. Police used to wait until 5-6 officers arrived on scene before engaging an active shooter for OFFICER safety. In the mean time unarmed innocents were being shot (uncontested) for another 10-15 minutes. Now the first officer on site is to engage the active shooter for reasons 1 and 2 above. When an active shooter is confronted with someone else with a gun they stop. Either by suicide or having to engage that armed person. This happened recently in a mall out in Oregon or Utah where after shooting two people the active shooter was confronted by a concealed carry citizen who didn't fire because he was afraid of hitting people behind the active shooter. So with no shots fired in the direction of the active shooter he retreated behind a pillar and killed himself. The active shooters looking to rack up a body count choose their targets BECAUSE they are gun free zones just like in Colorado where the theater shooter drove past larger, closer theaters to go to one that was a GUN FREE ZONE!!!!

"...doesn't immediately recognize who isn't and is the bad guy. ..." Again bringing up points about someone looking like a bad guy because he has a gun. You example of a rally with a dingbat may be valid but in a real shooting incident the police won't get there before he starts shooting. Once someone is shooting at you you don't really care about looking like a bad guy but want to survive and if necessary shoot back. There may be limited examples where police roll up and wrongly identify a good guy as a bad guy. They are so far and few between I don't think it is a valid argument. And for those that worry about me hitting innocent people in a firefight with an active shooter, the CCW person at the mall above shows the normal restricions an average citizen places on others life and he chose not to shoot. Even if innocents were hit it would distract the active shooter from his regular targets since rounds are coming his way.
"but institutional security being paid to provide protection, is something that I believe needs some level of regulation, versus an individual protecting themselves..... " Show me a school district that ISN'T regulating the people that are armed via training, background checks etc. Your straw man again is that they are simply handing out guns at the next PTA meeting!!!

You may be pro-gun and simply have strong opposite opinions but stop playing by the anti's playbook and standing up strawman arguments!

 

[45acpForMe]

A private company does not generally "repress" one's rights. an insurance company operates ....

I "generally" agree but since the school is most likely required to carry some insurance and if no company will sell them insurance while they are performing lawful duties it presents a problem directly related to firearms and the right to self defense. The availability of companies to provide insurance or the rules requiring insurance would have to change. I find it repulsive for any organization be it public or private in trying to dissuade me of my right of self defense. Many restaurants banned firearms which is their right as private property but they take no responsibility or liability if a madman starts shooting in their restaurant. After all you can't blame them for a mad man!?! The problem is that they chose to invoke their private property rights to disarm me and take away my capability to defend myself and my family. I typically won't give them my business but I am amazed that they provide no security or protection in compensation to my voluntary disarming.

I am feeling a bit repressed myself these days so enjoy:
[video=youtube;fxGqcCeV3qk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxGqcCeV3qk&feature=player_detailpage#t=45 s[/video]

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Emn you seem to bring up all sorts of strawman arguments. (forgive the formatting since the editor here sucks)
" handing out pistols to staff " Where in the lunch line? No one is going to hand out pistols. Utah already allows teachers to carry provided they get the right training. Not many mass shootings in Utah schools.
" little jimmy upset that he got an F on his algebra test? bam now Mr. Garrison "pulled his gun from the desk when i was talking to him alone and intimidated me and I have mental unrest and PTSD from this threat " and now the school will settle with the kid's family with my companies money...." Really? Most schools that allow carry permit it as concealed. If a teacher pulled out a gun he would need a darn good reason or would face jail time for brandishing. Again how many lawsuits have you heard about (and you WOULD hear about them from the lame-stream-media) that have had teachers brandishing weapons in Utah? What about that Texas county that allows teachers to carry?
"I stated it will be an insurance nightmare due to claims of injury or intimidation as a result of guns." This is a blood in the streets argument... again real life teachers carrying hasn't demonstrated ANY such lawsuits.
"When you hand out guns to someone..." There you go again stating a false fact that handguns would just be willy nilly handed out to anyone including the mentally/emotionally deficient teachers. Where I have read about teachers being armed they are required to pass certain tests and training.
"School shootings are so incredibly rare..." in a way that is true but the gun-free-zone body count continues to rise in leaps and bounds! Schools are just one area where the government has declared a gun free zone. Declaring a school a gun free zone does nothing to protect the people in that school!
"what do you mean? do you mean "why is a resource officer " Did you read the article where some schools were getting around the restrictions about arming teachers/administrators by declaring them school security officers?
"A similar concern about student safety developed in neighboring Colorado, with one rural school board responding by giving two of its top administrators new job titles – security officer.
The move in Dove Creek in the southwest corner of the state has turned the tiny town into a model for other Colorado school districts looking to get around laws that allow only peace and security officers to pack heat in schools. A legislative effort that would have changed that and put guns in the hands of Colorado schoolteachers died in committee earlier this year.
The security officer contracts were approved by the board at a February meeting. Each will be paid $1 a year for their officer duties to make the deal legitimate."

"most shootings happen in places posted as "no guns" but is that due to the no guns policy" Yes it is! Police have changed their tactics for an Active Shooter scenario because the shooter is most likely to 1) stop attacking innocents when engaged and 2) may commit suicide when challenged. Police used to wait until 5-6 officers arrived on scene before engaging an active shooter for OFFICER safety. In the mean time unarmed innocents were being shot (uncontested) for another 10-15 minutes. Now the first officer on site is to engage the active shooter for reasons 1 and 2 above. When an active shooter is confronted with someone else with a gun they stop. Either by suicide or having to engage that armed person. This happened recently in a mall out in Oregon or Utah where after shooting two people the active shooter was confronted by a concealed carry citizen who didn't fire because he was afraid of hitting people behind the active shooter. So with no shots fired in the direction of the active shooter he retreated behind a pillar and killed himself. The active shooters looking to rack up a body count choose their targets BECAUSE they are gun free zones just like in Colorado where the theater shooter drove past larger, closer theaters to go to one that was a GUN FREE ZONE!!!!

"...doesn't immediately recognize who isn't and is the bad guy. ..." Again bringing up points about someone looking like a bad guy because he has a gun. You example of a rally with a dingbat may be valid but in a real shooting incident the police won't get there before he starts shooting. Once someone is shooting at you you don't really care about looking like a bad guy but want to survive and if necessary shoot back. There may be limited examples where police roll up and wrongly identify a good guy as a bad guy. They are so far and few between I don't think it is a valid argument. And for those that worry about me hitting innocent people in a firefight with an active shooter, the CCW person at the mall above shows the normal restricions an average citizen places on others life and he chose not to shoot. Even if innocents were hit it would distract the active shooter from his regular targets since rounds are coming his way.
"but institutional security being paid to provide protection, is something that I believe needs some level of regulation, versus an individual protecting themselves..... " Show me a school district that ISN'T regulating the people that are armed via training, background checks etc. Your straw man again is that they are simply handing out guns at the next PTA meeting!!!

You may be pro-gun and simply have strong opposite opinions but stop playing by the anti's playbook and standing up strawman arguments!

I know formatting sucks... but breaking this up in chunks would help... nonetheless I actually did read what you posted and think you got some things wrong.... If I got any points of yours wrong (which is possible) please correct me.

1) My scenario about little Jimmy was concerning the idea of a false allegation and lawsuit. of course it's a crime to draw your gun, but look at how many people wrongfully accuse police officers of using force against them... and cops are indemnified. something I read awhile back was in 95% of all police complaints in which a Dash Camera is positioned to view the incident the officer is exonerated.

2) The utah and Texas districts (also Eastern Oregon districts have been doing this too) that allow staff to be armed are mainly rural in nature and at least one district in Oregon that a heard about on the radio years ago (although I can't remember the name) allowed the custodian to keep a .30-30 rifle on premises because of concerns about predatory animals during nature walks and recess. I think a smaller district is less likely to have these problems when everyone is your neighbor.

3) The number of districts with routinely armed teaching staff or that allow personal weapons are so small that it's not a reliable indicator of what would happen if every school allowed teachers to carry guns. when the US Military first started committing to vietnam, the Air Force carried the M-16 and the Army and Marines carried the M-14. The Air Force had next to no issues with the M-16 in the hands of a few hundred and later a few thousand Security Policemen who used the M-16, all the reports were glowing. then the General Army issued out these rifles to hundreds of thousands of soldiers and suddenly it's jamming all the time... Do not be confused... as I've said, if the potential for a problem is low then one is less likely to happen. imagine a community, that's completely sealed from everyone else, they're provided food, water, housing. but they're a sealed community. of 1000 people. let's say zero have guns. how many people will be shot? zero. now if we took the 20 most honest citizens and gave them guns, how many will get shot? probably not many, and the ones who do probably deserve it. I should note 20/1000 is about 2% which is about the percentage of the population of the 5 states who maintain at least 1 valid concealed pistol license. let's say we give 500 of them have guns or routinely carry them, what will happen? I don't know, it would depend on alot of things. I do not think it would result in terribly much carnage of most of the people are honest... but it could potentially result in more carnage. the study sample of districts of armed teachers is not huge.

3) That colorado district had better not have union teachers, because by classifying staff as security guards they're violating the Taft Hartley Act which prohibits a recognized labor union from containing security guards in the same bargaining unit as a non security employee.

4) I don't know enough about active shooter policies in a general sense of american police departments

5) The Oregon shooting was not stopped by a CPL holder, the police investigated that claim and found no evidence to substantiate it, I've had numerous friends who live there tell me with the layout of the mall that the claim makes no sense. nothing against the CHL holder, or anyone who CCs, but that CHL holder is someone I feel sorry for, he wanted badly to be a police officer and I think he'll have trouble being hired since he allowed a story of himself choosing to do nothing and then take credit for it be put up on the media.

I actually hope he does can still get hired as a cop, because I don't like peoples' dreams crushed, but understand, it's doubtful he made any difference.

6) I am anti, that is I'm anti reactionary measures that will make little difference being immediately enacted without a good chance to study how it will effect other things. Frankly, I think the status quo is ok, because mass shootings are rare. I never said blood will run in the streets, or that it will be a bloodbathe with teachers killing back talking students.

I think realistically teacher on student violence will be rare and near non-existent, but it will exist. and quantifying benefit will be very difficult.

I do advocate the Israeli model of having armed volunteers (who can be commissioned as reserve police officers under the laws of my state) patrolling at schools or having security staff as I stated... but I'm also critical of increasing the powers and functions of government employees for a very rare occurence. private schools can do whatever they want, arm all the teachers, that's fine with me becuase a private school won't be leaching the taxpayers for the cost of training and parents who don't like it can enroll their kids in a different school.

I should aslo state parents, volunteers, legitimate guests and visitors who can legally carry a gun openly or concealed everywhere else should be allowed to carry inside the school too. If I can carry in the park or the arcade, or soccer fields, there's no reason I should be untrustworthy in a school. I fully support LACs carrying in schools as private citizens.

 

[Grapeshot]

most states I believe already allow staff to carry guns so long as the school board approves it. I have no issue with this. but i think a decision about this subject should be made by local school boards....
I have been heavily involved with this issue locally and have no such information to indicate "most states" allow. Do you have a cite? In fact I believe that most states with preemption would not allow local school boards to independently decide - Va is one such state.

Yes and Yes but are criminals targetting schools because of the gun free zone? or are they just choosing where they know the news vans will roll to after the gunfire stops? it's true that most shootings happen in places posted as "no guns" but is that due to the no guns policy, or is it because places posted "no guns" are usually always either government property or somewhere where alot of people are congregated together? I don't think private citizens should have to disarm upon entering schools, but claiming the gun free school zone laws and regulations are the reason we have school shootings is to me... just as much of a stretch as claiming that legal gun owners are the reason for shootings...
Thank you, sir. You have just made my argument for me. Mass shooters chose GFZ because their odds of success are better AND have a high concentration of potential victims. What ends these tragedies....someone with a gun!

Yes police are not mandated, but find me any officers willing to say "i'm just going to let the littleuns die because the supreme says I can" not many police officers are like that...
However they will and have delayed entry until they have "sufficient" backup, when minutes or seconds count.......and what do they bring with them to stop the carnage.......again GUNS!

A numbers of universities and some school systems already allow firearms to one level or another. Have their insurance rates increased? I don't know, but doubt by much if at all.

And most all of them have to by law. ad states like Oregon, Utah and Michigan and Colorado in the case of colleges, allow private citizens to carry guns (actually my community college does not forbid adjunct faculty from carrying firearms either.... or at least they didn't use to, then the college newspaper made a stink about how their safety was at risk from adjunct professors carrying guns... :banghead as opposed to staff being encouraged to carry guns... much different when you're paying someone holding a gun then a mere visitor.
What has been the history/result of the citizens carrying guns? What major problems have there been? To my knowledge virtually none.

I have yet to advocate "paying someone to hold a gun." What I advocate is not disallowing otherwise legal people from the ability to defend themselves - the benefits are enormous.

Doesn't shock me, but they're private property so it's not a direct comparison...
Actually the VaGOP convention was held at the Richmond Coliseum which is public property. Yes, it was leased as a venue. Still it would have required that they actively say "No Guns" to have changed the status.

I don't want to discuss it further since I'm borderline involved in collecting evidence and don't want to undermine my friend's position if this ever ends up in court... but I'll just say that if you knew all the circumstances, you'd know very well this joker is just gaming the system. the friend doesn't want the insurance company to pay out and increase his premiums...
In a prior life, I was the Senior Property Manager for a large Real Estate Mgt. company and most involved with the insurance of investment properties. Unless your friend has a history of claims, it is unlikely that he will suffer from an experience rating. Still what I am hearing is that he may not choose to file a claim - his choice.

I dont disagree... but I think there is such a thing as too many guns. and before someone accuses me of being an anti again, I'm not talking about "americans own one gun per person or there's too many guns in circulation"

I think that if you have a situation where there is alot of people with guns in one place, in a group not militarily organized who doesn't immediately recognize who isn't and is the bad guy. every single person armed begins to create liability. at a rally in Olympia we had a few jokers, one had an AR pistol on a sling, another have a micro uzi looking pistol and mr micro uzi was sweeping the crowd of armed people in front of him finger on trigger until a state trooper went and talked to him. but imagine if some guy had decided to "act in self defense" and gun shots started ringing out in a crowd of about 500 armed people plus about a dozen state patrol officers? I'm actually very upset the troopers didn't charge him and relieve him of his firearm.
I have been a lot of places where there was at least one gun per person: picnics, dinners with up to 200 people. I have attended sporting events (professional baseball) where there were no restrictions on carrying. Have never seen a negative happening. Are there some fools/poorly trained individuals? Of course, but by and large I find the legally carrying non-LEO is better trained and safer than most officers - that is not LEO bashing, it is just an inconvenient truth.

Again, I know that this has never actually been a problem to date, but just because something has not been a problem in the past doesn't mean it can't become one.
That can be said about anything - sorry but no bonus points.

I also want to say one last time, these are my personal concerns. I in no way advocate government restriction on an individual person or group of persons who want to protect themselves.... if you want to carry a rifle, do so, wanna open carry, great! wanna conceal and carry? knock yourself out...

but institutional security being paid to provide protection, is something that I believe needs some level of regulation, versus an individual protecting themselves.....

I don't think you can separate the two w/o infringing on the individual rights, excluding private property.

Again, I am not advocating "paid protection". It is my belief that over regulation, too many restrictions, too many limitations has created the problems we have seen. The pendulum is swinging the other way now - I hope it continues it's journey towards what our Founding Fathers intended.

We do live in interesting times do we not?

P.S. - Sorry about that wall of text. If you really want to know how I feel, come to one of our meet n' greets

 

[45acpForMe]

I know formatting sucks...

For some reason I no longer can define text colors or enter carriage returns. Not sure why but have to edit in Word then copy here.

1) My scenario about little Jimmy was concerning the idea of a false allegation and lawsuit. of course it's a crime to draw your gun, but look at how many people wrongfully accuse police officers of using force against them... and cops are indemnified. something I read awhile back was in 95% of all police complaints in which a Dash Camera is positioned to view the incident the officer is exonerated.

I understand your concern but should a concern about a lawsuit stop us from doing what is right? There is a (small – as you point out) sample of this being a non-problem. I am all for allowing local schools to choose their own policy but we need to get rid of the Federal mandated GFSZA.

2) The utah and Texas districts (also Eastern Oregon districts have been doing this too) that allow staff to be armed are mainly rural in nature and at least one district in Oregon that a heard about on the radio years ago (although I can't remember the name) allowed the custodian to keep a .30-30 rifle on premises because of concerns about predatory animals during nature walks and recess. I think a smaller district is less likely to have these problems when everyone is your neighbor.

Well let’s get rid of the GFSZA and allow states and localities to choose how to proceed.

3) The number of districts with routinely armed teaching staff or that allow personal weapons are so small that it's not a reliable indicator of what would happen if every school allowed teachers to carry guns. <snip>

The key term is “every” school. That is why you allow each state and locality to choose how to proceed. Some will do nothing, others will hire an armed security officer, others will allow teachers or CHP/CWP holders to carry.

3) That colorado district had better not have union teachers, because by classifying staff as security guards they're violating the Taft Hartley Act which prohibits a recognized labor union from containing security guards in the same bargaining unit as a non security employee.

Don’t know but the NEA and teachers are going to be AGAINST any changes like this. They tend to be among the most liberal of our society. We can’t allow the decisions regarding the safety of our children to be made by politically correct organizations. Again no law or policy would REQUIRE anyone carry a firearm but would simply ALLOW them to carry based on the requirements set up for training etc.

4) I don't know enough about active shooter policies in a general sense of american police departments.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/ca...13/02/rethinking-active-shooter-response.aspx

5) The Oregon shooting was not stopped by a CPL holder, the police investigated that claim and found no evidence to substantiate it, <snip>

Can you provide any articles stating this. I searched and only got positive articles and news coverage about the incident saying that he saved lives. I had not heard what you claim.

I do advocate the Israeli model of having armed volunteers (who can be commissioned as reserve police officers under the laws of my state) patrolling at schools or having security staff as I stated... but I'm also critical of increasing the powers and functions of government employees for a very rare occurrence. private schools can do whatever they want, arm all the teachers, that's fine with me because a private school won't be leaching the taxpayers for the cost of training and parents who don't like it can enroll their kids in a different school.

For once I agree with you 100% (in the underlined area)!

I should aslo state parents, volunteers, legitimate guests and visitors who can legally carry a gun openly or concealed everywhere else should be allowed to carry inside the school too. If I can carry in the park or the arcade, or soccer fields, there's no reason I should be untrustworthy in a school. I fully support LACs carrying in schools as private citizens.

I agree with you again but for whatever reason allowing armed teachers/admins seems to be an accepted lesser step out of the gun free zone than allowing your average citizen to carry in schools. I carry at McDonalds and don’t go berserk in the kiddie area so why do they think I will in a school? Allowing parents to carry seems more natural to me.

My comments are in bold.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

P.S. - Sorry about that wall of text. If you really want to know how I feel, come to one of our meet n' greets

Why don't you come to one of our meet n' greets?

The Hideaway Cafe in Scenic Port Orchard, Washington every third saturday at high noon.

I would love to come to one of your meet and greets if I ever get out that way to Virginia I will drop by....

 

[ron73440]

I really think people are over thinking this.

If a teacher has a permission slip, they should be able to conceal carry IF THEY WANT TO, no extra training or pay, no new security positions.

This might be the only time I would recommend CC over OC.

 

[eye95]

I really think people are over thinking this.

If a teacher has a permission slip, they should be able to conceal carry IF THEY WANT TO, no extra training or pay, no new security positions.

This might be the only time I would recommend CC over OC.

Hell, if a parent can lawfully carry, he shouldn't be stopped from carrying in a school. Schools should be GREHZ (Gun Rights Exercised Here Zones).