• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Kansas schools uninsurable due to gun law?

BenBurch

Gatekeeper of The Left
BenBurch
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Messages
37,538
Location
The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...thrusts-iowa-insurer-into-gun-debate/2495815/

DES MOINES, Iowa -- A new Kansas law allowing gun owners to carry weapons in public buildings, including schools, has thrust a major Des Moines-based insurer into the national gun control debate.

The EMC Insurance Cos. insures 85 percent to 90 percent of all Kansas school districts and has refused to renew coverage for schools that permit teachers and custodians to carry concealed firearms on their campuses under the new law, which took effect July 1. It's not a political decision, but a financial one based on the riskier climate it estimates would be created, the insurer said.

"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," said Mick Lovell, EMC's vice president for business development. "Our guidelines have not recently changed."

<SNIP>
Click to expand...

The law of unintended consequences once again.
 
More people with guns who are not necessarily suitable to have a gun. What could possibly go wrong? :rolleyes:
 
Newtons Bit said:
And how long before another insurance company looks at this, realizes there is next to no increase risk of liability and adds the school to their insurance?
Click to expand...

It will happen pretty quickly if there really is no increase in risk.

If it doesn't happen quickly the implication is that those who make their money from analyzing risk see an increased risk.
 
Newtons Bit said:
And how long before another insurance company looks at this, realizes there is next to no increase risk of liability and adds the school to their insurance?
Click to expand...

This is a very short-sighted law, granting gun owners the right to carry concealed weapons in public buildings. It's the same thing that happened with Stand Your Ground and enhanced Castle Doctrine laws. They're crafted to protect the Ward and June Cleavers in our world. The advocates always forget it will apply to every gun owner, even the ones with hair-trigger tempers, all kinds of personal issues and, nowadays, even felony convictions.

"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," Skow said. "That changes the risk of insuring a school and magnifies it considerably." Insurers simply don't know how to price the added risk yet, he said, but they know it's there.
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Keith said:
How does the CCL training compare to LEO training?
Click to expand...

It's nowhere near as extensive or as far reaching. However, the claim that he was responding to was that these people shouldn't have guns. Their having a CCW would indicate that they have shown they should have guns.

Of course this says nothing about if they should have guns in schools. My own take on the matter is that teachers shouldn't be carrying because they are surrounded by children of various backgrounds and responsibility levels all day while trying to teach. It increases the chance of an accident more than it defends against an active shooter, in my opinion.

EDIT: Sorry, shouldn't necessarily have guns. It's an important distinction.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
And how long before another insurance company looks at this, realizes there is next to no increase risk of liability and adds the school to their insurance?
Click to expand...
So, just to be clear, are you implying that the risks of a gun crime/accident leading to injury/death are the same for a school that allows people to carry guns as for a school that doesn't? I'd love to see data, or even sensible logic, that would back that up.
 
Last edited:
Babbylonian said:
So, just to be clear, are you implying that the risks of a gun crime/accident leading to injury/death are the same for a school that allows people to carry guns as for a school that doesn't? I'd love to see data, or even sensible logic, that would back that up.
Click to expand...

I believe the reasoning is that the risk of accidents will not exceed the reduction of violence through deterrence and active shooters being taken down sooner.

Again, I don't agree with this, but it's not nonsense logic, simply wrong. In my view.
 
tyr_13 said:
I believe the reasoning is that the risk of accidents will not exceed the reduction of violence through deterrence and active shooters being taken down sooner.
Click to expand...

Is there really so many gun incident in school in des moines ? Because google search brought only a suicide incident (hanging) with a supposedly plan back in 2003. Oh, and a father and son bringing a shotgun.

So if deterence is zero.... Since there was no incident to begin with.... then you indeed increase risk.
 
Last edited:
tyr_13 said:
I believe the reasoning is that the risk of accidents will not exceed the reduction of violence through deterrence and active shooters being taken down sooner.

Again, I don't agree with this, but it's not nonsense logic, simply wrong. In my view.
Click to expand...
I think it is nonsense. The criteria for obtaining a carry permit in most ["shall issue"] states are pretty much not yet having been convicted of a felony and not yet having a public record of mental illness, along with perhaps a fairly short gun safety course. Thinking for even a second that someone who meets those standards and believes they need to pack heat in a school is going to "[reduce] violence" is foolish - we all know people who could successfully obtain a CCW permit but who probably shouldn't be allowed to do so. Even assuming they can hit the broad side of a barn with a handgun isn't a sensible starting point.
 
Aepervius said:
Is there really so many gun incident in school in des moines ? Because google search brought only a suicide incident (hanging) with a supposedly plan back in 2003. Oh, and a father and son bringing a shotgun.

So if deterence is zero.... Since there was no incident to begin with.... then you indeed increase risk.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many gun accidents will be considered acceptable to prevent the rash of intentional gun violence you are pointing out.

Yeah, risk is something that stupid insurance guys just don't understand . . .
 
Aepervius said:
Is there really so many gun incident in school in des moines ? Because google search brought only a suicide incident (hanging) with a supposedly plan back in 2003. Oh, and a father and son bringing a shotgun.

So if deterence is zero.... Since there was no incident to begin with.... then you indeed increase risk.
Click to expand...

I agree. That's why I don't agree with their reasoning. I don't think there is a place in the US that the risk of violence makes that cost/risk come out with arming teachers.

Babbylonian said:
I think it is nonsense. The criteria for obtaining a carry permit in most ["shall issue"] states are pretty much not yet having been convicted of a felony and not yet having a public record of mental illness, along with perhaps a fairly short gun safety course. Thinking for even a second that someone who meets those standards and believes they need to pack heat in a school is going to "[reduce] violence" is foolish - we all know people who could successfully obtain a CCW permit but who probably shouldn't be allowed to do so. Even assuming they can hit the broad side of a barn with a handgun isn't a sensible starting point.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't make the reasoning nonsense, it just makes it wrong. The reasoning is predicated on a couple of assumptions which in this case are not true, but which could be true. Wrong, not nonsense. Perhaps you mean that the assumptions are nonsense?

What are the CCW requirements for Kansas?
 
tyr_13 said:
But that doesn't make the reasoning nonsense, it just makes it wrong. The reasoning is predicated on a couple of assumptions which in this case are not true, but which could be true. Wrong, not nonsense. Perhaps you mean that the assumptions are nonsense?
Click to expand...
I would say that logic based on nonsense assumptions would be nonsense logic, but it's not worth arguing about something on which we agree. :D
What are the CCW requirements for Kansas?
Click to expand...
It's a "shall issue" state, pretty much as I described. No felony convictions or history of mental illness and some more specific non-felony-type restrictions.
 
Newtons Bit said:
These are people with a CCL.
Click to expand...

If the CCL is properly done and requires refreshers then fine. Otherwise, no because you are potentially giving guns to people who when push comes to shove may not react as you would hope and there is an increased chance of error.
 
Newtons Bit said:
And how long before another insurance company looks at this, realizes there is next to no increase risk of liability and adds the school to their insurance?
Click to expand...

I wonder if the insurance company view is based on something like:

Moving from no CCW to allowing CCW:
- Actual medical costs: likely no significant change in expectation
- Chance of lawsuit (punitive damages) relating to a shooter other than a member of staff: likely no significant change in expectation
- (NEW) Chance of lawsuit (punitive damages) relating to a member of staff improperly discharging a firearm: small possibility of occurance BUT settlement might be very large

Now, from view of society as a whole (focusing on chance of injury/death, i.e. the actual medical costs), we may not see it as being likely to matter much… but from the point of view of insurers I can see that a potentially massive lawsuit could be offputting.
 
Babbylonian said:
I would say that logic based on nonsense assumptions would be nonsense logic, but it's not worth arguing about something on which we agree. :D

It's a "shall issue" state, pretty much as I described. No felony convictions or history of mental illness and some more specific non-felony-type restrictions.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. However, it's not as you describe completely. While it is Kansas and I would wager a guess that there are problems with the CCW process, here is the requirements section.

Requirements:
1. Must complete an 8-hour weapons safety and training course and obtain a certificate of completion from a certified instructor.2. Twenty-one (21) years of age
3. A Citizen of the United States
4. A resident of Kansas for six (6) months prior to application
5. A Resident of the county where applying
6. No felony conviction or diversion;*
7. Applicant must not have any if the following within five years preceding application:*
a. Convicted or placed on diversion two or more times for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs
b. Misdemeanor convictions or diversions under the provisions of the Uniformed Controlled Substances Act
c. Convictions or diversions for a domestic violence misdemeanor
d. Convicted or placed on diversion for carrying a concealed weapon while under the influence of alcohol/drugs
e. Convicted or placed on diversion for carrying a concealed weapon without a license.
8. Cannot be in contempt of court in a child support proceeding
9. Applicant cannot be under a current criminal charge or indictment for an offense that would render the person ineligible for a license
10. Ajudged disabled and appointed a guardian or conservator under the Kansas Act, unless the individual has been restored to capacity for at least three years
11. Not Subject to any of the following restraining orders:
a. Protection from abuse/stalking
b. Divorce
c. Child-in-need-of-care
12. No person ordered by the court to receive treatment for mental illness or alcohol/ substance abuse is allowed to have a concealed carry license unless the person has a certificate issued by a court, at least five (5) years prior to the date of application, restoring the applicant’s ability to possess a firearm13. Applicant cannot have a dishonorable discharge from the military
Click to expand...

Highlighting mine. It's not as willy nilly as simply not being a convicted felon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom