Skip to main content

Are guns in schools risky? Insurers say yes.

Remember how, after the Newtown shooting, the NRA and many Congressional Republicans said schools and students would be safer if teachers and custodians armed themselves? Well, in light of Kansas passing such a law, it appears as if insurance companies aren't on the same page as the NRA and many Congressional Republicans.

The Des Moines-based EMC Insurance Companies insure between 85 and 90% of all Kansas school districts, but have declared that they'll refuse to renew coverage for any school that follows through with the new state law.

Mick Lovell, EMC's vice president for business development, said the following with regard to the decision:

"We've been writing school business for almost 40 years, and one of the underwriting guidelines we follow for schools is that any on-site armed security should be provided by uniformed, qualified law enforcement officers. Our guidelines have not recently changed."

Insurers Continental Western Group and Wright Specialty Insurance have both followed EMC's lead and refused to provide coverage for schools that permit teachers and custodians to carry firearms. To this point, though, no Kansas school districts have adopted the pro-teachers-with-guns policy, whose chief advocate is none other than state senator Forrest Knox, who had this to say with regard to the insurers statements:

"I'm not an insurance expert, but it's hard for me to believe that if schools and other public buildings allow law-abiding citizens to carry that that increases risk - it's news to me. Law enforcement responds better (to school shootings now), but it still takes a few minutes, and a lot of damage can be done in a few minutes."

A lot of damage can be done with what? A gun? Yet with more guns in schools (which can cause "a lot of damage" "in a few minutes"), that doesn't increase risk?

So, taking what Mr. Knox said with both this statement and others, here is what the state senator has basically said:

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people! The more guns we have in the hands of citizens, the safer we're going to be! This includes teachers and custodians at our schools! Look - guns can do a lot of damage in a few minutes, yet they don't increase risk for insurers. Guns can cause a lot of damage and in a very short period of time, but they don't kill people - so insurers have nothing to worry about. The more guns we have in schools, the more damage that's going to be done, but with less risk and fewer deaths! Fact!"

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/07/08/2262861/insurers-kansas-armed-teachers-risk/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"