Insurers don't want guns in schools
People in Kansas can now carry weapons into public buildings, but insurance companies are balking at the increased risk.
EMC Insurance Cos., which insured some 90% of all school districts in the state, will not renew coverage for schools where teachers and other staff are carrying concealed guns on campus, The Des Moines Register reports. Two other insurers also followed suit.
The reason? Those guns create a riskier climate, and that sets off red flags for an insurance company. School armed security should be left to uniformed law enforcement officers, an executive with EMC told the newspaper.
The issue raises a difficult point for school administrators and parents. Is it safer to give a teacher a gun -- even after thorough training? Insurance companies seem to think that more guns equal more risk. They just don't know how to price that risk yet, one industry executive told The Register.
"It's one thing to have a trained peace officer with a gun in school; it’s a completely different situation when you have a custodian or a teacher with a gun," the executive, Bob Skow with the Independent Insurance Agents of Iowa, said. "That changes the risk of insuring a school and magnifies it considerably."
The Kansas law, which took effect July 1, was passed after the December massacre in Newtown, Conn., in which 20 young students died.
Insurers in other states are balking, too. In Indiana, an insurer for one school district refused to provide workers' compensation coverage if teachers were carrying handguns in classrooms, UPI reports. In Oregon, school districts were told their annual liability premium would rise $2,500 for every employee who brought a gun to school.
- Boeing's 777 crash shows how much safer flying is
- Oil by rail draws new scrutiny after Canada disaster
- Why legal fishing is an endangered industry
Really? Having an armed police officer at a school doesn't negate the insurance as much as if the janitor was carrying a hog-legged shootin' iron?
Get serious... taxes paid to keep armed officers at the schools don't help defend the students, and if you really want to make an impression, use a Taser. Of course, the police are instructed to only zap you with the 25,000 volts from the Tazer until you stop moving (read unconscious, not dead), like the teacher a cop tasered and when the investigation found out that the teacher was an epileptic, and he was repeatedly "zapped" because he was responding to the officer's repeated question, "You want some more?" by convulsing, which the officer took to be a nod in the affirmative. Unfortunately, the school lost a teacher (he died) and the police force didn't have to pay for a lawsuit, so it all works out.
Anyone who can take a gun course, and provide a possibility that my children will be safe from a crazed teenager (or teenagers; let us not forget Columbine), and shoots the little bastards dead, (because the cop on the school grounds was taking a dump or having his mandatory coffee break) will not get a jail sentence from me. I'll fight to the highest court to make sure they remain out of jail - but, by the same token, if the police must be on campus, get the response time down to under 30 minutes (try 1-3 minutes), and because cops have adrenelin rushes, make their rounds rubber bullets or bean-bag rounds. Cops are more deadly in a firefight that the shooters...
LAPD opens fire on truck with man and child inside. Truck was struck over 100 times, 4 bullets hit the man and the child was killed by a sniper bullet.... who's more dangerous?
Excuse me, but how does allowing LAW ABIDING adults to carry the means to protect their otherwise defenseless students increase risk to an insurance company? That's a fallacy that simply isn't supported by the facts. MANY other countries with serious terrorist threats against their schools have armed teachers and volunteers in their schools without the problems that these idiots are claiming will result. Perhaps the people making these decisions should take a class in simple logic. Good guys with guns don't pose a risk because they are GOOD GUYS. Bad Guys with guns are a risk because they are BAD GUYS. When good guys without guns meet bad guys with guns, the good guys die. When good guys with guns meet bad guys with guns, the bad guys die. Either way, having the good guys armed will reduce or eliminate the threat BEFORE major carnage can occur. If the actuaries are telling the underwriters that good guys with guns on campus increases risk, the company needs to hire new actuaries because these guys are liars or fools.
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
[BRIEFING.COM] The major averages began the new trading week on a slightly lower note with small caps leading the weakness. The Russell 2000 shed 0.3% while the S&P 500 slipped less than a point with six sectors ending in the red.
Equity indices began the day in negative territory with only the Nasdaq (-0.04%) making a very brief appearance in the green. After sliding through the first hour of action, the major averages reversed and spent the remainder of the session climbing off ... More
More Market News
Like many companies this winter, the fast-food giant blamed a drop in same-store sales on the weather. But could its problems be bigger than a snowbank?
MUST-SEE ON MSN
- Video: Easy DIY smoked meats at home
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'