Insurers take a dim view of arming school employees

[Dittohead not!]

Doesn't add up though. It's such a rare occurance it doesn't even register. I'd be more concerned with playground equipment as a risk manager.

It may be a rare occurrence, but when it does happen, the results are devastating. Can you imagine the court battle should a parent bring a lawsuit over a child killed or injured at school in a firearm incident?

It's enough to make an insurance company bean counter shudder at the very thought.

 

[Tigger]

Just another reason to homeschool hour kids...... Lack of proper security on school campuses.

 

[sangha]

I think you also have no idea what you are talking about. The NRA is not an insurer.

Benefits of Membership

 

[Dittohead not!]

Just another reason to homeschool hour kids...... Lack of proper security on school campuses.

Most accidents take place in the home.

 

[LaMidRighter]

It may be a rare occurrence, but when it does happen, the results are devastating. Can you imagine the court battle should a parent bring a lawsuit over a child killed or injured at school in a firearm incident?

It's enough to make an insurance company bean counter shudder at the very thought.

I don't buy it, a kid is more likely to break his neck falling off the monkey bars than get shot. In fact, schools shootings are such a rare anomaly that any potential devastation already is figured in the numbers. Now, if we speak of tort abuse and the litigation, point taken.

 

[Tigger]

Most accidents take place in the home.

Not with responsible gun owners. My family fas been ow Inge firearms for more than 350 years without a single accident. A couple purposeful shootings. Mainly of British or Union soldiers but that's a different story. I would not allow any child of mine to attend any school that did not have appropriate security.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I don't buy it, a kid is more likely to break his neck falling off the monkey bars than get shot. In fact, schools shootings are such a rare anomaly that any potential devastation already is figured in the numbers. Now, if we speak of tort abuse and the litigation, point taken.

What you say is true, statistically. Lots of kids are injured on the playground, usually not seriously, but sometimes. Most falls from the monkey bars result in a broken bone at worst.

So, why would insurers balk at gun toting teachers? Do you think the actuaries got it wrong, or did Twitt78640 put his finger on the real reason back on the second post?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Not with responsible gun owners. My family fas been ow Inge firearms for more than 350 years without a single accident. A couple purposeful shootings. Mainly of British or Union soldiers but that's a different story. I would not allow any child of mine to attend any school that did not have appropriate security.

Most accidents in the home have nothing to do with gun ownership, responsible or not.

 

[LaMidRighter]

What you say is true, statistically. Lots of kids are injured on the playground, usually not seriously, but sometimes. Most falls from the monkey bars result in a broken bone at worst.

So, why would insurers balk at gun toting teachers? Do you think the actuaries got it wrong, or did Twitt78640 put his finger on the real reason back on the second post?

I think it's a bit of a combination. Sure, there could be a bean counter worried about additional liability from a teacher taking a bad shot, but realistically the actuaries are so on their game that's already been factored in and I can't see them coming up with the liability numbers that the executives setting the prices came up with. The big problem with insurance executives is they will justify anything to increase the bottom line, I have a sneaky suspician this was done as an excuse to raise rates against the contract.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I think it's a bit of a combination. Sure, there could be a bean counter worried about additional liability from a teacher taking a bad shot, but realistically the actuaries are so on their game that's already been factored in and I can't see them coming up with the liability numbers that the executives setting the prices came up with. The big problem with insurance executives is they will justify anything to increase the bottom line, I have a sneaky suspician this was done as an excuse to raise rates against the contract.

OK, that's plausible, but what about threatening to cancel the policy? That can't have a positive effect on the bottom line.

 

[LaMidRighter]

OK, that's plausible, but what about threatening to cancel the policy? That can't have a positive effect on the bottom line.

That's a bully tactic, basically if the school told the company to go and get ****ed that would go away quickly. Insurance companies don't like losing guaranteed large scale contracts. Like I said, the numbers just don't line up with the insurance company claims. As well, threatening the cancellation could be a CYA measure to avoid gouging charges, or other contractual issues in court. Not all insurance companies play fast and loose with the rules, but when they do they pull out every legal trick in the book, they have an entire legal department just for that.

 

[Joe Steel]

State Sen. Forrest Knox (R), who advocated for the law, told the Register that only 300 of 3,000 counties and municipalities in Kansas had filed exemption requests with Attorney General Derek Schmidt (R), and that a brokerage group, identified by another state official as the Insurance Management Association, had agreed to provide insurance for Independence Community College, Labette Community College and Neosho County Community College, three schools in his district.

“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,” Knox told the Register. “It’s news to me.”

Insurers dropping Kansas schools over concealed-carry law for teachers

Really, Forrest? It's news that flooding schools with guns might get someone killed? Maybe you've been out on the prairie too long.

 

[Tigger]

Most accidents in the home have nothing to do with gun ownership, responsible or not.

I'd still rather homeschool than send any child of mine to a public school.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Maybe the NRA can assume the risk. They can create an insurance company and sell liability insurance to every school who wants guns on campus.

What do you think?

The NRA stepped in with quite few ideas and were vilified before the last brass casing hit the floor.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Really, Forrest? It's news that flooding schools with guns might get someone killed? Maybe you've been out on the prairie too long.

Flooding? I dont see as a trained police officer or two, patrol cars in conspicous places as "flooding". I see it as sending a message.

 

[mak2]

Insurance companies dont like Doberman guard dogs either. Course they will never (very rarely) have to pay for a breakin, but might pay off big when the dog eats the neighbor kid.

 

[Joe Steel]

The NRA stepped in with quite few ideas and were vilified before the last brass casing hit the floor.

This wouldn't be just an idea. It would be a blow for freedom. They would run an insurance company and use it to promote their beliefs. Just imagine the gun rights the NRA could promote if their members knew they could insure every gun action.

 

[CRUE CAB]

This wouldn't be just an idea. It would be a blow for freedom. They would run an insurance company and use it to promote their beliefs. Just imagine the gun rights the NRA could promote if their members knew they could insure every gun action.

I dont know who backs them, but the NRA does offer insurance.
Use of a gun is covered in your homeowners anyway, learn alittle about the insurance industry before trying to form a political statement.

 

[Joe Steel]

I dont know who backs them, but the NRA does offer insurance.
Use of a gun is covered in your homeowners anyway, learn alittle about the insurance industry before trying to form a political statement.

Perhaps you should take your own advice. The NRA might sponsor an insurance plan but it's underwritten by an insurance company the NRA doesn't own. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting the NRA assume the risk That's a technical term. Find-out what it means.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Perhaps you should take your own advice. The NRA might sponsor an insurance plan but it's underwritten by an insurance company the NRA doesn't own. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting the NRA assume the risk That's a technical term. Find-out what it means.

The NRA is not going to assume risk. Thats not why they exist, and that isnt that technical.
You think NASCAR should assume risk for any thing happening on the road between a Chevy and a Toyota?
The NRA, which Iam a life member, has done nothing by attempt to educate young people on gun safety. I am a product of that training they have offered.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Were the NRA to assume the risk of people owning guns, just where would the money come from to assume that risk? If it came from membership, the dues would have to be pretty high, and most people would just opt out. If it came from a surtax on guns, then firearms could get a bit pricy.

 

[tererun]

Look, I'm going to tell you this, and you are wasting your time with a response. You didn't work in the insurance business, I DID, some companies do in fact look for rate increase opportunities, and like anyone else some play politics, but you nor I know which it was.

I know that the numbers don't match the lie and the technicals of why, you don't. All you have is talking points, and everyone knows it, you don't know anything about either the insurance business or guns/gun control, and we all know it.

The insurance company is about making money. They see a reason to charge more, so they do charge more. Cost analysis, if we charge the customers more money when they have to have insurance, we will make more money. That is how it works for the greedy slime of the insurance industry. You can put whatever spin on all of that which you want, but it all boils down to the same thing, they want to make money.

 

[LaMidRighter]

The insurance company is about making money. They see a reason to charge more, so they do charge more. Cost analysis, if we charge the customers more money when they have to have insurance, we will make more money. That is how it works for the greedy slime of the insurance industry. You can put whatever spin on all of that which you want, but it all boils down to the same thing, they want to make money.

Don't give me your opinion on insurance. I was in the business and know how it works. You don't know how things work, but that doesn't stop you now does it?

 

[tererun]

Don't give me your opinion on insurance. I was in the business and know how it works. You don't know how things work, but that doesn't stop you now does it?

We all know how insurance works. It is a business responsible to it's shareholders to make money and profit. It's secondary concern is to pay out to it's customers. This is a major conflict of interest in the present for profit business system. It puts customers behind investors and the company. A for profit insurance company that does not put it's profit in front of it's customers will fail due to lack of investors and other money problems which would compromise it's profitability and make it insolvent. This is the way businesses work. This is why we have healthcare reform because this method has been yielding a number of unscrupulous practices on the part of insurance companies. The school needs insurance, so finding a reason to up their rates works for the insurance company because the school simply cannot drop the insurance. We all know that when an insurance company cancels your policy you get put into a higher risk category and all insurance companies will then charge you more anyway. The insurance company is not there to make a statement on the safety of guns, they are there to improve their profit margin by having a reason to raise rates.

 

[LaMidRighter]

We all know how insurance works. It is a business responsible to it's shareholders to make money and profit. It's secondary concern is to pay out to it's customers. This is a major conflict of interest in the present for profit business system. It puts customers behind investors and the company. A for profit insurance company that does not put it's profit in front of it's customers will fail due to lack of investors and other money problems which would compromise it's profitability and make it insolvent. This is the way businesses work. This is why we have healthcare reform because this method has been yielding a number of unscrupulous practices on the part of insurance companies. The school needs insurance, so finding a reason to up their rates works for the insurance company because the school simply cannot drop the insurance. We all know that when an insurance company cancels your policy you get put into a higher risk category and all insurance companies will then charge you more anyway. The insurance company is not there to make a statement on the safety of guns, they are there to improve their profit margin by having a reason to raise rates.

You don't know how insurance works, you've made assumptions as always based on whatever it is you read. I was in it, don't try to bull**** me.