Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, they are making sense. The people who are carrying the guns should be well trained and qualified. There is no requirement other than having a permit in the law.
Not having untrained people thrust into situations that even experienced officers dread is a sensible idea.
Quite a jump to a conclusion there, I think.
most states REQUIRE formal classes in order to get a CCP.
So now if an indecent happens a some poor kid gets shot the parents can now sue the school for NOT allowing proper protection.
most states REQUIRE formal classes in order to get a CCP.
So now if an indecent happens a some poor kid gets shot the parents can now sue the school for NOT allowing proper protection.
Most schools have already done their due diligence with hardening their schools and security in a reasonable manner, no need to go to the extreme having teachers with guns.
Sorry but this proposal is absurd, the cure is worse than the disease.
Quite different when a company puts a gun in a employees hand, they are liable. Plenty of examples of schools being sued over the behavior of teachers, if a district decides to require a gun in the hands of a teacher they also take responsibility for any accidents or misuse.
The company wouldnt be supplying the gun, nor would they be putting them in the employees hands.
"The Oregon School Boards Association, which manages liability coverage for all but a handful of the state’s school districts, recently announced a new pricing structure that would make districts pay an extra $2,500 annual premium for every staff member carrying a weapon on the job." Armed educators, higher liability insurance. Or no insurance. | Get Schooled | www.ajc.com
The company wouldnt be supplying the gun, nor would they be putting them in the employees hands.
I am not sure that is correct, but in any event they are changing their policy to allow guns inside schools and they are requiring/providing the so called training. The first time something happens it will be their responsibility and they will need to answer to their change in policy.
Insurers won't insure schools with gun toting teachers - it's too risky
If a whacko enters a school and starts shooting the kids and the teachers, and kills 20 people before the cops show up and stop him, the school's insurance doesn't have to pay for it, because it wasn't the fault of any school personnel.
But if a whacko enters a school and starts shooting the kids and the teachers, and the teachers are armed and they fail to stop him until three or four kids are dead, then the school's insurance DOES have to pay for it.
The risk to the people in the school isn't greater. The risk to the **insurance carrier** is greater.
Insurers won't insure schools with gun toting teachers - it's too risky
If a whacko enters a school and starts shooting the kids and the teachers, and kills 20 people before the cops show up and stop him, the school's insurance doesn't have to pay for it, because it wasn't the fault of any school personnel.
But if a whacko enters a school and starts shooting the kids and the teachers, and the teachers are armed and they fail to stop him until three or four kids are dead, then the school's insurance DOES have to pay for it.
The risk to the people in the school isn't greater. The risk to the **insurance carrier** is greater.
The risk to the school is greater, that is exactly way no insurance company would take the risk. A few hundred teachers that are basically untrained, unprepared and focusing on teaching, what do you think the odds of an accident in that situation. Seems like the solution may be worse than the original problem.
The risk to the people in the school isn't greater. The risk to the **insurance carrier** is greater.
which means insurers will either not offer a plan, or offer it in a manner similar to the reinsurance market -life insur-incredibly high rates to the insured.
Insurers won't insure schools with gun toting teachers - it's too risky
If a whacko enters a school and starts shooting the kids and the teachers, and kills 20 people before the cops show up and stop him, the school's insurance doesn't have to pay for it, because it wasn't the fault of any school personnel.
But if a whacko enters a school and starts shooting the kids and the teachers, and the teachers are armed and they fail to stop him until three or four kids are dead, then the school's insurance DOES have to pay for it.
The risk to the people in the school isn't greater. The risk to the **insurance carrier** is greater.
WRONG!
Payments are typically covered by general liability policies, though not always.
The insurance companies believe that the RISK of a shooting is INCREASED by having armed teachers. They believe that there's a significant risk that a troubled student will simply overpower the teacher before he/she has a chance to draw their weapon, then USE that weapon on fellow students.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.