Teachers with guns law backfires in Kansas, insurance companies refuse to renew coverage for schools

The new law in Kansas which allows gun owners to carry weapons in public buildings, including schools, puts the school’s insurance at risk, including a major company that insures 85 percent to 90 percent of all Kansas school districts. Insurance companies think that it’s too much of a risk, and say that someone qualified and uniformed should carry the weapons. The NRA fully backed this law regardless of the obvious safety and business concerns.

Guns_schools

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USA Today reports:

 

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.

The Kansas Legislature passed the law after the fatal shootings of 20 elementary school children in Newtown, Conn., in December.

The law is similar to one in Utah. Around the country, firearms groups have called on schools to let teachers and staff carry weapons to protect children and prevent mass shootings.

Another insurance company is doing the same in response to the law.

Bob Skow, chief executive officer of the Independent Insurance Agents of Iowa said, “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. That changes the risk of insuring a school and magnifies it considerably.”

H/T: An actual good guy with a gun, @ComgenKDT. 

 

  • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

    So the same thing we’ve been saying since the NRA decided to push this idea. Wonder what Brownback will do now? Surely there’s an online betting site for the over and under on the level of stupidity of his next suggestion.

    • http://FreakoutNation.com Anomaly 100

      I was going to add an “We told you so, we told you so!’ but I thought, oh noes, I’ll hurt their wittle feelings. Glad you did it! :-)

      • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

        I was already neener, neener, neener all over the local paper.

        • http://FreakoutNation.com Anomaly 100

          Go look on our Facebook page. I neenered too.

      • Rufus Hearn

        Not to be at all condescending… but there is a major state issue brought forth and ratified… allowing responsible, registered gun owners to carry, including in schools.

        Yet, because some insurance companies complain… you guys are “neenering” in some sort of deluded sense of victory??? Small victory. Very small “victory” indeed, IMO.

    • tiredoftea

      In his strict adherence to “free market” principles, he’ll get his fringie fellows in the state legislature to require the insurance companies to change their policies.

      • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

        He will try I’m sure. This company is in Iowa and they’ve been the main insurer for KS schools for 23 years. He can try to find an in-state company or “self-insure”, which I’ve seen private companies do but it requires a ton of capital to be placed in escrow and I’m fairly certain Kansas doesn’t have it and the citizens may have issue with this idea.

        • DesertSun59

          And the only way to fund ‘self-insure’ or a private in-state insurance company is to raise taxes.

          • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

            and Brownback campaigned on and is trying to eliminate all but sales and property tax. trying.

        • The Green Devilish One

          Or he’ll pass a law that says if Willie the Groundskeeper is drunk and shoots your kid, you are not allowed to sue the school district.

  • Cosmic_Surfer

    I hate the concept of “insurance” – betting against the house always is a losing game. That said, Anything that poses a threat should be looked at as a risk. Risk management departments for the school district should have sounded the alarm…Guns in the wrong hands are lethal. The easier the access to guns by children, no matter how careful a teacher or staff member believes they are, is a nightmare ready to happen

    • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

      As possibly the most over-insured individual ever, I understand the dislike for the odds. How they determine these odds however is fairly straightforward and should stand up to any scrutiny they want to place on the determination. Just seems like common sense to me, but hell what do I know.

  • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

    In my humble opinion insurance is rigged game and a scam in many instances, but it’s curious how they are leading the way on issues like this and climate change.
    Insurance companies are now refusing coverage for folks in high risk areas stricken by increased storms and flooding as well as those infected by paranoid gun junkies.
    It’s quite interesting how actuarial tables supersede political posturing.

    • The Green Devilish One

      It’s not really a rigged game, any more than poker is rigged. Insurance companies make decisions based on probabilities and most of the time, it works to their advantage. But sometimes things don’t and they have to pay out. There’s no room in that sort of decision-making for posturing or charity. It’s strictly numbers, nothing personal. Of course, the teatards will scream this is all liberal bs, which is funny because they’re the first ones to carry water for the companies when they align with their own misinformed views even if it’s against their own best interests- defending the banks and Wall Street and tax cuts for the wealthy, for instance.

      • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

        I agree, but it’s still the same methodology that built billion dollar casinos along the Strip in Vegas. They are in charge of their own rules and favor their own odds.

  • Shanasmiles

    Actuaries aren’t making political decisions…they are basing likelihood of payout on probabilities and statistics. The likelihood of a large payout (and likely a massive lawsuit) jumps dramatically with untrained individuals carrying unknown numbers of weapons with unknown amounts of ammunition. The likelihood that there will be an accidental discharge, intentional shooting (either in actual self defense, misinterpreted perceived harm, or homicide), unsecured weapon accessible to children or bad actors, or a disarming event increases exponentially as the number of carriers increase. It’s math. It’s money. Insurance companies do not want to make any payouts, so they guard their money with statistics.

  • DesertSun59

    Remember how this works, folks. The Teatards who control the GOP are not at all familiar with much outside their trailer parks. They don’t understand how business works and are wholly unaware of what an actuarial table is.

    • pwrserge

      So you got your backside kicked in the courts and the political arena by a bunch of “Teatard” rednecks? How embarrassing for you… You do realize that, statistically, non-felon civilians are far more responsible with their firearms than cops? This is blatantly a political gesture rather than based on any actual statistical analysis of probabilities. Especially when the companies insist that the only people allowed to carry guns are the people who are far more probable to do stupid things with them. (Cops are three times more likely to have a negligent discharge than the average CCW permit holder.)

      • The Green Devilish One

        And how did so many of these “felon civilians” end up as felons? Why, by committing crimes with a firearm. Now, I’m sure you’ll pull out the tired old argument that “they got guns illegally” Well, how were they able to do this? 1, by legal gun purchasers reselling those guns to other- and because the NRA opposes ALL laws regarding background checks for the private non-dealer sales of firearms, these sales are 100% legal under the law. 2- by “responsible” gun owners not locking away their firearms and having them stolen.

        • pwrserge

          Or being gang bangers or drug dealers. The overwhelming majority of homicides are gang or drug related right? Over 70% of homicide “victims” have previous felony records.

      • DesertSun59

        See what I mean? Not even a school filled with massacred children will make a dent in these gun nut minds.

        • pwrserge

          Yeah yeah… Want to get a new bloody shirt? The one you are waving is getting a little dry. Would you prefer that Lanza used a bomb? Firearms used in mass murder are a non issue. Of the top ten incidents in US history, none used firearms.

  • Ann Knickerbocker

    Just wish all the other stupid things they do would hurry up and bite them in the ass. They are self-destructing, but not fast enough. They are taking down the rest of us with them.

    • pwrserge

      That’s why NRA membership is up 25% in the past six months? You lost the gun control debate. Always have, always will. Check the percentage of states that allowed concealed carry thirty years ago and compare to today. You already lost that war. Next up, a total repeal of all magazine, assault weapon, and ownership bans.

      • The Green Devilish One

        This is why we’re regarded by the rest of the civilized world as a nation of heavily armed morons. While much of the rest of the first world evolves (except Russia), we’re devolving. The reasons these fights are being lost is that the Right has succeeded in dumbing down the population, feeding into people’s ignorance and racism. This country blames “others” for all our problems- the black Kenyan Muslim in the White House creating the black/brown welfare state by stripping all good god-fearing white Christian people of their hard-earned wealth when the reality is that most of these Fox-watching Teatards belong to Walmart Nation, slaving away for sustenance wages so low they are entitled to welfare benefits. They don’t blame Walmart for their lot in life or the banks and Wall Street who swindled $17 trillion from the Fed (read- US taxpayers) by threatening to further tank the economy. No, it’s not their fault, it’s those “others” and the only way to defend against these “others” is to buy guns. Guess what, teatards- you’ve been had, but you can’t be blamed. You get all your information from the Fox Propaganda Network. They’re in cahoots with the monied interests. Rupert Murdoch doesn’t care about your best interests. He only wants to make money and knows the easiest way to do it is to pander to ignorant racist ill-informed morons.

        • pwrserge

          So instead you support a bloated Federal state that has the power to utterly crush an individual with no due process or legal recourse? Great solution. At least I know what motivates a corporation. Profit. Not blind and idiotic political idealism.

          • Desiree Freitas

            and all you teatards are all about idiotic political idealism. Please find an island and move there, along with the rest of you fox trolls, then you can have your island any way you want it, just don’t look for the USA to bail you out, or offer aid when you implod

      • sk

        paranoid often?
        arrogant often?

        actually its people with attitudes like yours that drive people to wish for some gun control.

        • pwrserge

          You can wish all you want. Until you are ready to use force to get your way you will get nothing. The hilarious part is, that we are more than able to defend ourselves and our rights.

          “Those who would sacrifice essential liberties to obtain a measure of temporary safety, deserve neither liberty, nor safety.”

          • sk

            troll
            enjoy your bitter little world view
            I am happy with mine
            I would hate being where you are
            must be kind of a bitter miserable existence

          • pwrserge

            Bitter? Hardly. We won this battle and are winning the war. The only bitterness is from losers like you who want to force others to give up their rights to make your paranoid hoplohpobic delusions go away. Tale heart little sheep. No big bad wolves are coming for you tonight.

          • Desiree Freitas

            you are one fry short of a happy meal, why is it when adults are having a civil debate, it’s the idiot zealots like you that all of a sudden, get defensive, loud, arrogant and if it is not your way, and of course everyone has to agree with you, you sound like a 5 year old having a temper tantrum just like all the ones like you. BTW not ALL citizens of the USA want what you want, but pppl like you don’t give a crap. well i’m not a sheep, and again to you as I have said to others IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT HERE LEAVE.

  • The Green Devilish One

    “Peace officer”? Welcome to 1984.

  • Kenton Forshee

    Yep, you do that and you’re on your own.

  • Daniel Lovejoy

    How long do you think it will be before the NRA starts their own insurance company, specifically for people with firearms? (along with a clause that allows them not to pay out on most claims of course)

  • Mike Venuto

    Hmmmmm. Interesting position as we wrestle with how to protect schools and students. Hire combat vets as teachers? NRA approved training courses for teachers and staff? Centralize all School District Security in one place and monitor all buildings with a security team on the prowl? Guess we have to get the insurance company to buy off?

    • Rufus Hearn

      NRA approved and civic law enforcement certification for school personnel. Sound perfectly reasonable.

  • pwrserge

    So now an insurance company gets to veto the will of the people? Really? Since these statist scumbags lost in the courts and the political arena, they are now going to try to blackmail the state? I would really like to know how the insurance company figured out their risk calculation. In reality, an armed civilian with no criminal record is far less likely to accidentally shoot somebody than a cop and far more likely to stop a violent crime. (Source: FBI unified Crime Report)

    • Rufus Hearn

      “So now an insurance company gets to veto the will of the people? Really?”

      Well stated. The rest is good too, but this really puts it in black and white.
      Bravo, pwrserge.

    • Tina Andres

      The insurance company gets to make a determination regarding risk and the financial health of their company. Or would you have the government mandate that they provide insurance? You can’t have it both ways.

    • http://oshma.net/wordpress MO

      The insurance businesses are just that–businesses, and in a red state like Kansas, I am sure that regulating a business to determine whom they must cover and how they must operate, is anathema to the citizens.

      • pwrserge

        IF the insurance company can prove the decision was not politically motivated? Sure. I pay less for homeowners insurance because I have several guns in the house… Please explain that logic.

    • Jack Dingler

      Why not pony up your own cash and and offer them insurance?

      It’s a free market after all.

    • ARealHousewifeInOC

      you Cleary mean the will of the NRA…?!!

      • http://FreakoutNation.com Anomaly 100

        ^ This.

      • pwrserge

        So the NRA runs the state legislature now? Really?

        • Desiree Freitas

          YES THEY DO!!! a lot of elected politicians are in their pockets. not 10 years ago the NRA was all behind background checks, among other things, and now OH MY they changed their minds so use what eever it takes, (more $ the for the politicans)

    • mayhem1960

      What kind of crack are you on to think that an insurance company cares about politics over profits? You can certainly disagree with their assessment of risk, but to imply that a business should go against what they consider their best interest to pacify “the will of the people” smacks of socialism to me.

      • pwrserge

        The kind where their assessment makes no sense given publicly available statistics.

        • Ralph R. Zerbonia

          Private business, they don’t need to explain to you, it’s their money, not yours.

          • pwrserge

            When they do business with a government agency, yes, yes they do.

          • searambler

            No, no they don’t. Just saying they do doesn’t make it true. The only thing the state government can do here is NOT use a particlular insurer.

          • pwrserge

            Or they can ban that insurer from doing business in the state on the grounds of attempted extortion.

          • searambler

            LOL! Whatever you’re smoking, I think it’s time to stop. You are baked. You clearly have no fucking idea what you’re talking about.

          • pwrserge

            Yeah… I’m not a hippie, please quit projecting your additions on to me.

          • searambler

            I was trying to do you a favor by blaming your stupidity and ignorance on drugs. If drugs aren’t involved, and this is the real you, then I really, truly pity you and yours…..

          • pwrserge

            You keep posting, yet your drug fueled rants continue to make no logical sense. You would substitute fear and delusion for logic and fact. Have fun with that. I’ll be back in the real world where the crime rate is the lowest it has been in decades and I am wresting my freedoms back from a paranoid government that had no right to infringe on them in the first place.

        • http://www.lambpower.net/ Steve Dawson

          You can’t have it both ways…Companies have the right to deny insurance based on whatever they feel are increased risk factors. So, are you communist or socialist?

          • pwrserge

            They can be charged with blackmail as they are trying to subvert a law. If they can show evidence of why their decision is not politically motivated, fair enough. Otherwise, jail time.

          • http://www.lambpower.net/ Steve Dawson

            My bet is that you don’t like Obamacare either. Why do you want the government to intervene? Because you don’t agree with what they are doing. Too bad, so sad. Next they’ll start looking at private/public space like malls and churches. No one from Kansas saw this coming.

        • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

          Public statistics can be manipulated depending on the desired outcome and the questions asked – because they do have to ask questions to qualify the event, we know this, have always known this about stats. Insurance companies don’t care about the who/why like the stat takers, only the numbers.

          • pwrserge

            Yes, because no company has ever used their product to make a political statement. Ever.

    • Ralph R. Zerbonia

      Laws have consequences. You don’t want to force an insurance company to pay for a risk they don’t wish to assume do you? Why not just have the idiot taxpayers who voted for that legislature pay the bill, they wanted guns everywhere, so they should be willing to pay a lot more taxes to guarantee their right to bear arms.

      • pwrserge

        Again, if they want to prove that the action is not a political stunt, I will be happy to listen. The point is that a corporation does not get to outvote the people of a state.

        • searambler

          Sure they do. It’s called free market capitalism. What are you, a communist?

          • pwrserge

            Capitalism is an economic system, not a form of government. When it tries to become one it’s called a plutocracy. When a company makes a decision to harm the state, it is still responsible for that action. Capitalism or no capitalism.

          • searambler

            Bullshit. Insurance companies are private corporations, not governmental departments. Deciding not to insure a government run entity like a school system – for ANY reason, or no reason at all – is perfectly within their rights. This decision doesn’t “harm the state”, that’s just stupid. The state made a decision, now they deal with the financial consequences. Just like any other decision the state makes.

          • pwrserge

            That’s fine. Than the state is perfectly justified in pulling the license of such a company. I’m sure the others will be able to at least explain their decision if they don’t want to provide the service.

          • sc3d

            Why the interventionism? Surely this is a matter to leave to the market, not the state. If the insurance companies who have raised their rates are in error, then their competitors will undercut them and win their business.

          • pwrserge

            If the market was truly free and open. Sure. However, mandatory services cannot exist in an open market. The schools are required to purchase this service, thus one of the main competitive pressures (simply not buying the product) does not exist. As such a counterbalancing force must exist to keep the money grubbers honest.

          • sc3d

            If the market is not open, the market solution is to remove the barriers to freedom and openness, not impose further restrictions. How about making insurance non-mandatory, for starters? And what’s wrong with “money grubbers”? The market relies on the profit principle.

          • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

            Schools require insurance. Please, that statement makes no sense. School buildings alone hold hundreds, if not thousands of students engaged in a variety of programs. To think insurance is not necessary for these schools in today’s litigious society is just silly.

          • pwrserge

            The free market with no regulations, is simply economic anarchy. The issue is not on if regulations should exist. The issue is that the regulations should protect the consumers and the welfare of the nation.

          • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

            they also protect a for-profit business. You cannot place an undue burden on a company or manufacturer.

          • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

            Can’t do that. The company is located in Iowa as noted above, the KS government has no authority over this company.

          • pwrserge

            Actually, they can. They can yank the company’s license to operate in KS.

          • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

            the only thing this company does is school insurance. Pulling their license would have no effect on them, they’ve already said – no go – to the whole state.

          • pwrserge

            I guarantee you that it’s part of a larger institution that does far more. In addition, I would charge the CEO and board with extortion.

          • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

            According to the legal dictionary: Extortion: the obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

            It’s not extortion, they are not asking for higher premiums, they state it’s a risk they do not wish to undertake. By law, they can refuse do so – the state changed the laws, not the insurance company.

  • Davis Gloff

    Yes, insurance companies make these decisions all the time. This is one of many times that insurance companies have done things like this. It’s just that we’ve had our attentions directed to that red herring of an awful, limiting government. I’m no fan of guns, but this isn’t actually about guns. It’s about the insurance industry’s stranglehold on everything we do.

    “Death Panels?” Those have been run by private insurance companies for a long time, when they decided that they would not insure pre existing conditions or that they would limit coverage.

    People applying for jobs hope and pray that they can get a job that has good insurance, so if they get sick they don’t have to hope they get lucky…. and die.,

    Many times club or civic events have not been run because the venue couldn’t get affordable insurance.

    It’s an old saying that the power to tax is the power to destroy, but make no mistake, so is the power to insure.

    Nothing to see here, nothing new. It’s just that now the people whose activities might be controlled are accomplished, veteran whiners.

    • GreenEyedLilo

      From what I see here, two wrongs might actually be making a right.

      • pwrserge

        So you see nothing wrong with a corporation deciding it gets to override the legislature? Really?

        • Ralph R. Zerbonia

          Are you a communist? Why would you demand that they risk their money to pay for the increased liability. Laws have consequences and the consequences of allowing a bunch of people running around with concealed firearms is that children are at greater risk of accidents and mistakes. So the legislature was stupid in passing such a law. Doesn’t mean that a private corporation has to follow them over the cliff. And BTW, no, don’t make the schools relieved of liability, if it’s your kid that gets shot when a teacher has an accident with their gun, you should be entitled to sue, win and get paid. Just pass those increased costs on to the taxpayers who voted the stupid legislature into office! Or send the bill to ALEC and the Kock Brothers.

          • pwrserge

            Except that there is no evidence of such a risk. In fact, evidence seems to show that having cops around kids is more dangerous than having armed civilians. The fact that the company decries the latter and demands the former is a red flag.

          • babaganoosh52

            Obviously you can’t think outside the box…. or your incapable of seeing the possibilities of what could happen past the tip of your nose.

          • pwrserge

            I don’t need to imagine your paranoid delusions when statistical evidence shows that no such risk exists. Israel had teachers carry guns on campus for decades. It was never a safety issue.

          • Desiree Freitas

            your brain is so corrupted it boggles the mind. (at least those with one, and that is not you) of course there is a greater danger, the teachers and staff panic, they all pull their weapons and start firing not knowing exactly where the suspect is and what is in the cross fire, our KIDS. you brag about Israel go there, it would be better for the rest of us.

          • Jason Tadd Jackson

            So you don’t see a risk with untrained individuals walking around with guns during an emergency situation? Are you stupid? And it doesn’t have to be cops either. Just hire security guards like every other state. That law wasn’t about safety it was about pandering to peoples gun fetish’s. An yes there are studies that show that even individuals with gun training are a liability in an emergency situation.

          • pwrserge

            Except in sates where there are laws allowing concealed cary by teachers, no statistically significant increase in risk has been shown.

          • Jack Dingler

            Well, start your own insurance co, and sell them insurance.

          • Foulkeblows

            You can keep saying that but without any evidence to support your statement, no one believes you.

          • pwrserge

            I can’t prove an absence of evidence. It’s a logical impossibility. The burden of proof is on the party claiming such a risk exists.

          • caneshooter

            He doesn’t believe there is an increased liability, despite the fact the insurance company knows there is an increased risk of their bottom line.

    • Jack Dingler

      Exactly. It’s not a big deal if the corporations don’t want to pay for life saving procedures for terminally ill children.

      But if they don’t want a lot more guns in our schools, well look out! We actually care about guns!

      • pwrserge

        Please cite a single credible study that shows that guns in the hands of police are less dangerous than guns in the hands of normal citizens. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

        • searambler

          Please cite a single credible study that shows the exact opposite is true, that guns in the hands of police are more dangerous than guns in the hands of normal citizens.

          • pwrserge

            FBI unified crime report. A cop is three times more likely to have a negligent discharge where an innocent bystander is injured than a civilian with a CCW permit.

          • searambler

            So now you’ve gone from “normal citizens” to “a civilian with a CCW permit”? LOL! How often are cops charged with the crime of “negligent discharge where an innocent bystander is injured”? How frequently does this occur in relation to the frequency of a cop pulling his or her firearm in the line of duty? What percentage of weapons discharges resulting in injury are considered justified, versus negligent? What branches of law enforcememt are you citing? Just saying “three times more likely” to do something is a pretty meaningless stat.

          • pwrserge

            It’s only meaningless for those without two functional braincells to rub together.

          • http://www.lambpower.net/ Steve Dawson

            Perhaps you haven’t noticed that there are a lot of accidental shootings? Kids shooting kids because negligent gun owners can’t seem to keep their guns out of their kids hands?

          • pwrserge

            Really? You mean the incidents that are at an all time low and shrinking despite an increase in gun ownership? No system is perfect, but I have yet to see a story about how a kid got shot by a weapon that was properly holstered on the person of a CCW licensee. All those guns are unattended. Why would guns carried by teachers in schools be unattended? Or do you think we would just ask the teachers to throw a Glock in their desk?

          • Foulkeblows

            They may be unattended for the same reason ipods, laptops, cellphones and other items (guns) are left unattended. Negligence on the part of the owner.

          • pwrserge

            Please cite one such case. My CCW weapon is always in its holster which is on my belt. The only time I take it off is when I change clothes.

          • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

            forgive me Foulkeblows – what if it’s a coach and he needs to assist or display a wrestling hold to a student?

          • http://www.lambpower.net/ Steve Dawson

            Or a science teacher that has chemicals near them.

          • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

            perfect.

          • http://www.lambpower.net/ Steve Dawson

            All of those guns were left unattended by people who were normal people. They just screwed up. By the way some of those accidental shootings were guns left unattended by Police Officers, who by the way are better trained than the average joe with CCW permit.

          • Foulkeblows

            Link to the report?

          • pwrserge

            It’s on the FBI website. Go ahead and use your google-fu. Might want to grab a snack, it’s a several hundred page report.

        • Jack Dingler

          Why? I’m not making that argument.

  • http://FreakoutNation.com Anomaly 100

    Maybe you missed this part, “a major company that insures 85 percent to 90 percent of all Kansas school districts.”

  • Jack Dingler

    Insurance corporations are just socialist organizations, using socialism to make profits.

    They share the risk among a pool, and pay out claims for the greater good. Pure socialism.

    Just pass a law that says the school system can’t be liable for any suit and let the victims cover their own costs. That’s capitalism.

    Heck for that matter, schools are simply socialist training centers. They provide free instruction to students regardless of ability to pay and tax the surrounding community, and job creators to pay for it. That’s pure socialism. If we closed the schools, then there would be less evil socialism in our nation.

    • Desiree Freitas

      if that is how you feel you know NOTHING about socialism. I see you use the word, but you obviously do not know the real meaning of socialism. maybe instead of “talking points from Fox and the others who don’t know what socialism is” you should pick up a dictionary and READ the meaning. and If you still feel that way about OUR COUNTRY you can leave just like snowden.

    • Edwino

      Your first statement confirms you are high, drunk, an imbecile, or a combo of these.

  • pwrserge

    If I had the capital? I’d do it in a second. It’s a fairly easy get rich quick scheme.

    • http://www.lambpower.net/ Steve Dawson

      So, get yourself some business partners and there’s an opportunity. Perhaps the NRA would like to offer insurance to school districts that they’ve screwed.

  • Ralph R. Zerbonia

    Rufus, besides sounding stupid, you might want to consider that a private business is entitled to charge whatever they want, whether you like it or not. Why don’t you pay more taxes to cover the costs?

    • pwrserge

      What cost would that be? Every time gun rights are restored paranoid statist hoplophobes gnash their teeth and predict the “Wild West” [TM] and “Blood in the streets!” [TM] and it HAS NEVER HAPPENED.

  • pwrserge

    All good things. I already pay to have my kids go to private school. Why should I pay taxes to support slobs who are unwilling to provide for their children?

    • catlady628

      Wow, you’re a real asshole.

      • pwrserge

        No… I just don’t believe that anybody else is entitled to even one penny of my money.

        • MattR

          So then asshole fits perfectly.

        • Jason Tadd Jackson

          Once you pay your taxes it is no longer “your money”

          • pwrserge

            It’s my money. End of story. Armed robbery by government fiat does not make it any less mine.

          • Cosmic_Surfer

            Again – the concept of currency is way over your head. Not your money – read it sometime. In fact – horde it and see what happens if the US changes currency. Or check the value of the paper and sandwiched zinc you have. Not worth anything., It is the people and the State that determines it has value. It is the people’s money – you just use it.

          • http://www.lambpower.net/ Steve Dawson

            He must be listening to Glen Beck.

          • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

            more like worshiping – edit – that was a little harsh. let’s say he is a man of his convictions. regardless how unfounded and ridiculous they may be.

          • Jason Tadd Jackson

            Comment was deleted but I’ll respond anyway. Taxes are not robbery it is what you as a citizen gives up in order to enjoy the rights and privileges that a US citizen gets. You don’t want to pay them, fine leave.

        • Jack Dingler

          pwrserge lives in a castle. He has self contained water systems, sewer treatment and power.

          He’s completely off the grid and doesn’t even use roadways to collect his food.

          After all, he doesn’t want to steal our tax dollars by using our roads. He’s not a thief. He won’t use roads that we a pay for.

        • Cosmic_Surfer

          Your money? Did you mint it? Not your money – it is the people’s currency of which you have received a part in trade for imagined or bona fide work and/or goods or that you have conned or cheated or scammed to get.

          Not your money until and unless you own and operate the mint all by yourself..

          Want to see real socialism in action – The US Mint, US military, Police Force, Sheriff’s Department, Hwy Patrol, Roads and highway, water service, sewer service, sidewalks, electrical cabling, fire department.

      • http://FreakoutNation.com Anomaly 100

        Yes yes he is. I accidentally on purpose disappeared him.

        • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

          and the crowd goes wild.. aaahhhhahaaahhhhhaaaahhhh

          • http://FreakoutNation.com Anomaly 100

            Actually I hear the crowd too chanting, “Neener neener neener!”

    • Norma Audette Vinchkoski

      Do you pay for fire or police protection separately? Did your parents send you to private school? If they sent you to public school, I can guarantee you they did not personally pay the full cost through taxes.

      • pwrserge

        I would prefer to get an itemized bill, so that then I can pay for government services I benefit from. To answer your question… Private school all the way and then to a private college pain in part by myself. So… Your point?

        • taymie

          The point is that in a democracy or a representative republic (which is what we have) uneducated voters are big risk to the nation. We either give up the democratic process or we educate the masses. Or is it that you are really advocating for a system where only the select few get a voice?

          • pwrserge

            It’s actually rather simple. Stop handing out the franchise like it’s candy. That’s problem with our system. People don’t need to sacrifice anything to get a vote so they don’t value it.

          • searambler

            Yeah, we should just bring back poll taxes and literacy tests, to make sure that only the rich and educated get to vote. Or better yet, go back to the founding father’s days and restrict voting to property owning white males only. That would solve everything…

          • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

            he’s gone, look down a ways. he disperteared.

          • searambler

            Oh. Dang. I kinda felt like a cat playing with a very annoying mouse…

          • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

            I actually asked her to leave him for awhile, but then he turned nasty.

          • http://comgen.blogspot.com/ ComGen

            …damn them WOmen dictators….

          • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

            yep, better step lightly.

          • http://comgen.blogspot.com/ ComGen

            btw, the mod issue should be resolved now. Our WOman dictator and wannabe techie assigned the wrong email address and/or you changed it. Anywhowho, mod powers *should* be working now.

          • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

            WooHoo! I haven’t been this excited since front row Chris Isaak tickets. I’ll check now.

          • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

            see below.You rock the mostest. See the tweet. and thanks again.

          • http://FreakoutNation.com Anomaly 100

            You know I can read your comments, right? They’re right HERE.

          • http://comgen.blogspot.com/ ComGen

            No you can’t ! not unless you have my IP address!

          • http://FreakoutNation.com Anomaly 100

            Did the jerk hack your account? By the way, who says I don’t have your IP address?

          • Aslan Balaur

            And if she has a dynamic IP address? (LOL jk, had to say it)

          • http://FreakoutNation.com Anomaly 100

            I’m sorry.

          • http://www.lambpower.net/ Steve Dawson

            I was kinda hoping he would at least TRY to post the link :)

          • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

            he has no links, well actually he probably does. I’ve seen some of the gun stats he refers to but he’s pulling an “Issa” he’s only providing a portion of the report that makes his point. I was having fun, better than working out my frustrations on the significant other.

          • http://www.lambpower.net/ Steve Dawson

            I actually don’t think that he had links. I think he is a product of the Fox/Rush/Glen thought machine.Too bad:)

            He was sorta fun for a while.

          • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

            at least I felt like I was winning – I’m a tad competitive. But he was making it easy.

    • http://FreakoutNation.com Anomaly 100

      You’re just dying to get banned, aren’t you?

      • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

        give me a few more minutes, I don’t think I’m done with him yet.

        • http://FreakoutNation.com Anomaly 100

          OK, just tell me when. My patience is running out.

          • pwrserge

            Yup… So apparently, we don’t judge people here unless they call us on our BS… Yeah… A mecca of liberalism this is not.

          • http://FreakoutNation.com Anomaly 100

            You’re not calling anything out. You’re trolling. You keep saying that you don’t believe a picture from an Associated Press reporter on another thread. In yet another thread, you changed the topic to guns. Derp.

          • pwrserge

            Because no AP reporter has ever fabricated a story? Ever? Yeah… Without corroboration from a neutral third party that’s not a story, it’s tabloid journalism.

          • http://www.lambpower.net/ Steve Dawson

            You mean like Faux News?

          • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

            When, he can’t diss the boss.

          • http://FreakoutNation.com Anomaly 100

            He called the Associated Press ‘tabloid journalism.’ Yes he did.

          • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

            guess it depends on where he’s coming from…..

      • pwrserge

        Well, since you’re going around randomly deleting posts like a little tinpot dictator. Please… Go ahead. prove me right.

        • http://FreakoutNation.com Anomaly 100

          Ah but you see, this site is not your property. It’s mine and @ComgenKDT’s so if you’re being an asshole to our readers I’m going to ban you.

  • pwrserge

    Please explain again why you are entitled to take my money by force or threat of force…

    • TommyNIK

      Take your libertarian nonsense elsewhere.

      • pwrserge

        So, no justification then? Good to know.

        • http://www.lambpower.net/ Steve Dawson

          You do get benefits from the government, like roads, police, fire protection. Perhaps you would prefer to live in Somalia, where there is no real government.

          • pwrserge

            I can protect myself quite handily. The point is that it is not the role of government to be in the charity business.

          • caneshooter

            I would love to see how this guy would fare in Somalia.

          • http://www.lambpower.net/ Steve Dawson

            He’s self reliant probably would be lecturing the locals on how free they really are. That’s until he ticks off a warlord with his smaller government crap.

          • http://www.lambpower.net/ Steve Dawson

            So, you drive on your own roads to get to work/shopping/wherever? If a fire started in your house I presume that you have your own fire truck? That private school might actually be getting benefits courtesy of the local public school. Some private/parochial schools get busing assistance from the local public school system. Not to mention school nurse support and on occasion special ed support.. Some of the teachers at your private school may have been trained at state colleges or even got federal or local education grants to help pay for their private college education.

    • taymie

      Because the government printed the money, distributes it, and backs it. If the US government stops backing “your money” suddenly, nobody believes it is worth anything.

      • pwrserge

        That’s why only a tiny portion of my assets are in US currency. Regardless. I am waiting on an explanation how extortion and armed robbery are ok so long as the government does it.

  • pwrserge

    Except in places where people carry that has never happened. So you base your paranoid delusions on what, exactly?

    • babaganoosh52

      Your a one answer machine…. you must be a card carrying member of the NRA because they’re the only idiots who think this would be safe. As for Israel… bad choice, total different lifestyle, for decades people have grown up experiencing shite that you’ll never see in your lifetime.

      • pwrserge

        I have seen far worse things than the average Israeli. Multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan more or less guaranteed that. The fact is, that in the US, there is not one shred of evidence that concealed cary is a threat to anyone. In fact, every state that has expanded concealed cary has seen a drastic drop in the crime rate out of proportion to states that took no such action. You base your arguments on paranoia and delusions. I base my arguments on the historical fact that gun ownership by responsible adults has never been shown to be a threat to anyone.

  • TommyNIK

    I truly fear for the future of this country when I read mindless stupidity like this. I truly do.

  • Norma Audette Vinchkoski

    Are you willing to foot the bill for all that training??

  • Ben Hucks

    Jack is being sarcastic folks, and if you read it that way, he makes a good point.

  • Dex

    Ya know, the insurance companies ought to take a look at the risks, based on historical evidence of incidents where this is allowed elsewhere. VA doesn’t allow guns in schools or courthouses, but does allow them in any other public buildings, and in state / local parks, and so forth. People killed as a result: ZERO. Incidents of firearms discharge in a public building: Negligible. The only one I recall was in the VA General Assembly Building. A member of the House of Delegates discharged a .380 pistol into a bulletproof vest hanging on the back of his office door. Since a gun ban would not have applied to him (he was a delegate), it’s not relevant. This is simple douchebaggery on the part of fhe insurers.

    • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

      the insurance company was fine with armed guards – as exist in many schools. Their problem was with arming the teaching, administrative and custodial staff.

      • pwrserge

        Despite the fact that those same guards are proven to be a greater actual risk than the average trained civilian? How are they not making a political statement again?

        • Foulkeblows

          Any facts to back up that statement?

          • pwrserge

            FBI Uniform Crime Report. A uniformed officer is three times more likely to have a negligent discharge and two times more likely to accidentally kill a bystander than a CCW permit holder.

          • Harroll Morris

            “Deadly force: An investigation of D.C. police shootings
            Washington Post series reveals that D.C. police officers in the 1990s have shot and killed more people per resident than any other large American city police force. Internal police files and court records revealed a pattern of reckless gunplay by officers with inadequate training and little oversight. ”

            Cops have guns present more frequently because it is part of their job, and if this was the actual report you were referring to the problem was lack of training and oversight, which is going to be even worse if teachers and custodians go strapped all of the time.

  • wrmcnich

    Insurance companies are capitalists. Mutual insurance is no longer viable on a large scale. Insureds get no take of the profit from insurance corporations. The insurance companies provide a service and get paid. Socialism, my ass.

    • http://www.lambpower.net/ Steve Dawson

      Actually, there are some fairly large mutual insurance companies. Liberty Mutual and Nationwide come to mind.

  • Foulkeblows

    But shouldn’t all those “good guys with guns” make things safer????

    • pwrserge

      Statistically speaking, they would. If the company would get its head out of its backside and look at the actual data.

      • http://www.lambpower.net/ Steve Dawson

        Please provide your stats. I’m sure the NRA has SOMETHING that they have to prove your point. Oh, they don’t too bad.

        • pwrserge

          How about the latest DOJ report estimating several hundred thousand to several million effective defensive gun uses per year? That work for you?

          • http://www.lambpower.net/ Steve Dawson

            Please link to it. I doubt that there are stats like that from the DOJ. You see the NRA has effectively banned tracking gun uses. In any case put up or shut up.

          • Bill Yeager

            Steve, you probably already know the link, and are just messing with pwrserge. I can’t blame you, it’s kind of ridiculous. pwrserge, here’s that link if you want to look it up.

            This link is to the records archive for the U.S. Dept. of Justice, National Criminal Justice Reference Service (main page: https://www.ncjrs.gov and document link: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf). You may download the report and read it in its entirety, or you may simply skip to page eight, top of center column, “Defensive gun uses”, thereafter referred to as DGU.

            Please note: the “3.1 million defensive gun uses” number is an extrapolation from 45 respondents to a telephone survey conducted in 1997.

            Please read that again. This number is an extrapolation of 45 people who answered the phone, in 1997.

            It is not “the latest” report. Referencing a 1997 phone survey in 2012 or 2013 doesn’t make it “new data”.

            The 1997 telephone survey was conducted to replicate “…a 1994 telephone survey conducted by Florida State University professors”.

            In 1997, 45 people, over the phone and without verification, stated that in the past 12 months they had brandished a firearm (fired or not fired) to defend themselves or their property.

            Where it gets press is this part:

            IF that sample were representative of the entire population of the US, they said, it could mean that as many as 3.1 million instances of defensive gun use occurs annually. IF.

            Where it comes back down to earth is here:

            No study was actually conducted of DGU. No national crime data was analyzed. No research on gun statistics was conducted. A few dozen people answered their phone, and this is what they said.

            That is all this is.

            The DOJ doesn’t, and didn’t, make comprehensive analysis or estimates of DGU. They have virtually no capacity to do so, even if they wanted to, beyond these small sample “self reporting” surveys. The relevant data is either not reported to them by the various state agencies, or collected at all in many cases. And in some cases, by law – thanks to pro-gun laws – such data as exists is forbidden to be reported to, or collected by, the Federal Government.

            But don’t just read, use your brain. Do the math. 3.1 million DGUs per year means it either happens to one out of every hundred Americans every year, or one out of every thousand Americans 10 times per year, or one out of every ten thousand Americans every three days or so, all year, every year.

            Which is absurd.

            In any of those scenarios, it would mean that in ten years, roughly one out of every ten Americans – from newborns to geezers – would have brandished a gun defensively at least once. If you restrict it to adults between 21 and 65, you’re talking about almost half the country wielding guns to defend themselves. Presumably against the other half? I dunno. Don’t be stupid. The Wild West wasn’t that wild.

    • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

      If all the good guy scenarios played out like they do in the movies.

      • John F

        Or the real world? US DOJ stats that civilians who use guns in defense are less than 20% as likely as police to use them wrongly or cause undue harm, or that civilians with their concealed carry permits are among the best most law abiding segment of the population -better than politicians, judges, or police officers.
        Lots of noise here about figures for civilian defensive gun uses.. The DOJ recognizes some 78,000 per year, as solved cases or caught bad guys.

    • irisman

      You mean good guys with guns, like George Zimmerman?

  • norse

    Gun nuts: Enough, already! You don’t need to saturate every square inch with guns. Stop it. Stop it right now.

  • Vido Coolvee Trossi

    For once I can actually say I agree with an insurance company.. good job

    • pwrserge

      Please go lick the feet of your corporate lords and masters. I am sure that they will be happy to fee their slave a few scraps from their table.

    • Matt

      What a weird world where we find insurance companies making the smart, rational decision.

  • pwrserge

    NO. Not until every single law governing the ownership and bearing of arms is repealed and thrown in the dustbin of history. Right along with every other Jim Crow law.

  • Alan Batterman

    I agree that brick-and-mortar schools should be closed. With today’s technology, it is unnecessary to jam several hundred to a thousand kids into a building. Kids can learn at home. That way they don’t risk an accident on a dangerous commute. Diseases are much less likely to spread. Greatly lessens exposure to crime, sex, and drugs.

    • DavidChicago

      If you think that children can learn at home, then you don’t really understand education. Perhaps a visit to a school, and maybe a discussion with a few elementary school teachers would enlighten you

      • Alan Batterman

        Many children are home-schooled or have private tutors. If you mean children have to be taught to work with others on projects, they can do so without touching noses, using electronic communications. There is no need to jam 200-1,000 kids into a building. By the way, home learning would involve a teacher coming by to administer tests and otherwise check on progress.

        • Aslan Balaur

          And who is going to PAY for these roving teachers to go around checking progress? That would cost A LOT MORE than bringing the kids to the teachers. Because of the travel time, you would have to have many more teachers to cover the work load.
          Home schooled or private tutors. How 1% of you. MOST people simply CANNOT afford that. Or should the poor just accept their lot in life as menial labor at minimum wage without benefits to be the servants in your Utopia?

          • Alan Batterman

            Do you know what buildings and buses and bus drivers cost? Utilities, security, cleaning. Those things add up. A teacher might make a visit once every two weeks. A school district is fairly small, so there is little travel time. Not 1%, but probably 10% could afford private tutors. Remember, school taxes will go way down when buildings and buses are no longer needed. But, of course, they would not need private tutors as they would learn with the computer and a visiting teacher. Take an elementary school teacher. In school, say she teaches 24 kids during a 6-hour school day. If she visits 3 kids a day, on a 2-week rotating basis, that’s 30 kids, so less, not more, teachers are needed.

          • James

            I do not know how you learn but for me, I am a more hands on person. I need to be in a classroom to learn better. I do take online classes but they are harder for me.

            Home Schooling works for some not all. You parent needs to be committed to it at all times. With this day and age more kids will fool around on the computers than do home work. Have you forgotten what it was like to be a kid? Or were you the one that always had their homework done. Always raised you’re hands? Not everyone is like that.

        • DavidChicago

          Go, sit in a first grade class. Watch a teacher teach reading. Not all kids learn the same way, or at the same rate. But they need an experienced teacher to teach. Most parents are not qualified to do that. I have two undergrad degrees and a Masters degree, I wouldn’t even begin to try and teach elementary ed. What you would end up with is a totally inconsistent education level among the same age kids. No standardization, because not everyone is going to use tutors and not every parent can teach. Tests will only do so much. Go, sit in a school and see for yourself. Also, as an aside, most elementary schools are in the 3-400 range, across K-5th. That’s hardly jammed. High Schools are larger, and in being larger, they offer more services, more class diversity, more arts and music, and theater (how are you going to do that at home?), team sports, high and low achievement classes. Really Mr. Batterman, you need to get better educated about what schools do and what they really are.

          • Alan Batterman

            With a computer, you can teach music, art, drama; just about anything. The visiting teacher can better give individualized instruction than a teacher with 24 kids in the room. There is no standardization anyhow, because parents give different levels of support with our current system. And with my system, there is no wasting up to 80 minutes a day traveling to and from school. Clothes are not an issue; at home they can wear whatever they want and nobody knows or cares. And no more time wasted bundling up kids to go to school on a -20C Winter day, or rain gear in a rainstorm. Team sports do not have to be school connected. And physical education is not education; parents can decide what kind of exercise kids should get. And no more time wasted on cafeteria lunches (poor kids can get extra food stamps instead of free school meals).

          • DavidChicago

            You really need to go visit some actual schools. Your idea might work in a small community of 20 people, but it doesn’t scale. What happens to the kids who’s parents are functionally illiterate? What happens in large cities. Just an FYI, there are 416,000 school children in Chicago, The vast majority come from households where EVERYBODY works, there is nobody home to school the children. Computers and broadband aren’t affordable on an individual scale and you can’t teach music from just a computer. Your ideas are quaintly out of pace with the reality of a country with nearly 300 million people. Your ideas don’t address teaching STEM (that would be Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) Clearly, you have no idea of how education works, or what’s needed for the next generation.

          • Alan Batterman

            You think I never went to school. Some changes might have to be made in family work schedules — staggered shifts or one telecommutes. Very few parents are illiterate. Music is a luxury, parents who want their children to learn music can hire a music teacher. Computers and internet service can be provided for those who can’t afford it. Science, technology, engineering and math can be taught by computer. A bonus — a virtual lab is accident proof. I did not go into every detail, but the online lesson can be paused, and there would be a helpline to call if a student has questions. The wasted time going to and from school can be put to use. 20 minutes bundling up a student for a -30C Midwest Winter morning. 10 minutes waiting for the bus. A half hour circuitous bus ride to school. 10 minutes from when school ends until the bus gets moving. Another half hour ride back. 10 minutes taking off the Winter clothes.

          • DavidChicago

            Do you live in a small town? Try coming to the city. Online learning is useless without a teacher. I’m an I.T. consultant, I work with schools, I put those systems in. I know. I’ve also been on school boards, I understand the problems that urban schools face. I suspect that you live in a small area where most families have stay at home moms, who were.. wait for it.. educated in schools, not homes. I have two children now in college, one is studying engineering, the math and science background that she got at a suburban high school of 2,400 (rated in the top 50 high schools nationally) is what got her into engineering school. My son, spent 4 years on the Debate team, it’s what gave him the skills to get accepted to law school, he is now at one of the top 50 liberal arts colleges in the country. Your quaint ideas don’t solve the problems of education, they just push us father back. Yes, it gets cold here in the Midwest. Yes some kids spend a lot of unproductive time on the school bus. But staying at home with untrained adults for the next generation of education isn’t the answer. Please, go out to a city, there is where most of the school children are, in urban areas. Look at the issues that they face.

          • Alan Batterman

            There will be trained teachers involved in an online learning system. Those answering the questions on the helpline would be teachers. The lessons would be prepared by teachers. The system would be phased in over a period of years. During that time there would be other societal changes to accommodate it. Including training parents to assist with the education And a staggered work schedule and/or telecommuting. These huge factory schools have not been around for millennia. In most places, less than a century.

          • DavidChicago

            You just don’t get it. You have this utopian idea that ignores reality. The reality is that there is a functional illiteracy of nearly 30% of the adults in Chicago, but you want them to teach their kids. Never mind the language problems. You want everyone to have a stay at home parent, never mind the number of dual income families. You don’t seem to think that music or art are important, yet there are hundreds of studies that show it is. You seem too think that a computer will fix everything, when was the last time you called your service providers help desk? (which is based in India, where they use schools) You clearly have not lived in or near a large urban environment, yet you think you alone have solutions to the problems faced in those environments. You haven’t even touched on kids with learning problems, how to teach special needs kids so that they can be self-sufficient and educated. What you have is a fantasy that is based on an 1800’s philosophy for an agrarian society that no longer exists.

          • Alan Batterman

            No, not an 19th century philosophy, but a 22nd century philosophy. Technology will advance at warp speed. 30% illiteracy sounds like a backward 3rd world country. Dual income families can still allow one parent to be home during school hours — either telecommuting or staggered hours. Music and art, for those who want it, can be taught in small, neighborhood school or by teachers coming to the home. Look at the difference between the computer you are using and a 1949 Univac. Think of what advances will be made by 2030. Busing and huge factory schools will not be necessary.

          • DavidChicago

            Well there you go. You’ve already demonstrated your failure to account for the 30% of the city population. Might be like a 3rd world country, but that’s reality (use google, you’ll see) Most of those are immigrant population, from the 3rd world. So, now you’ve just busted your own success rate by 30%. Lets look at dual income. NO, most minimum wage jobs don’t have a telecommute options, and they don’t have flexible shifts so one parent can stay home and teach. Try that out at your local WalMart, see how they feel about working with you around that. Lastly, I’ve been a technology consultant, PC admin, Network admin, etc. for over 20 years. Before that I was a school social worker. It doesn’t matter that an iPad is more powerful than a 1949 Univac. You need teachers, on the spot. Your one-on-one online teaching or help desk doesn’t scale, and uses more resources than in school classrooms. You have to have teachers to teach reading! You still don’t address special needs kids, so I guess you just write those off with the other 30%, which is actually more than 30% since most families have more than one child. I figure your plan has now doomed over 50%, but at least those uneducated won’t get cold waiting for the school bus. Sorry, but i”m tired of this conversation. You are not a teacher, you don’t know shit about schools, kids or learning and very little about technology. There is no research or evidence to backup anything you say, contrary to the mountain of evidence behind what I’m saying.

          • Alan Batterman

            How many families have the breadwinner flipping burgers at Mickey D? And Wal-Mart can be FORCED to offer flexible hours. We are not talking about tomorrow, we are talking about 10 or 20 years. As technology progresses, the cost of resources will go down. In real dollars, a color TV costs 5% of what it did in 1965. Teachers can be reached online to answer questions asked by kids. By 2030, there probably could be robot teachers as good, or better than human ones. I learned to read at age one without a teacher. You don’t need a factory school to teach kids to read. And I’m sure the system can be made to accommodate special needs kids without the need for factory schools. How good were you at predicting technology? Could you predict just what computers could do in 2013 back in 1966? You just have a thing for yellow buses and thousand-student buildings. Mountain? There is zero evidence that in 2030 that those relics will be necessary.

          • joelferguson

            DavidChicago, first I must say, Go HAWKS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, 2nd, I’ve been arguing with that AssHat BITTERman for about a month now on various threads and have come to enjoy egging him on and pissing him off. Trust me, he won’t give up. This will carry on months or more if you let him, good luck.

            While reading over this thread I will stipulate the asshat has made a few good points, however, his elistist attitude will allude him from visualizing the greater problems with what he is proposing. In his view, there is no answer better than a one size fits all approach to everything, its in his collectivist nature. He’s nothing more than a nanny state elitist.

            I’ve been telling him repeatedly, you don’t need money to be an elitist. All you need is the will to control other and their decisions and he has that in abundance.

          • DavidChicago

            I agree with you across the board. My feeling is that if your answer to a problem will fit on a bumper sticker, you don’t understand the problem. I’m tired of small town people thinking that they have the answer to education. The Chicago Public schools has more kids than the total population of most towns. Home school 416,000 kids? Really? and then they get to milk the cows after their lessons? When you have 100,000’s parents who work basic jobs, and somehow one is going to stay home to educate the kids? Change hours? telecommute? To your job at McDonalds? I swear not to tell someone on a farm how to do farm chores, but don’t come to my city and tell me how to educate 416,000 kids based on some one room school house philosophy. I’m done with him, and yeah… Go Hawks!!!

          • joelferguson

            (Region Rat in da house here! Chicago’s NWI cousin) While some may benefit to what da asshat is proposing, most assuredly dat’s not the case for da greater majority. Unfortunately, what we have in Chicago and da Region is essentially a one size fits all system and I don’t envy anyone figuring out how to improve dat model, especially when dere is 416k kids to consider. In many cases dese school districts are poor in every sense of dat word and placing dat requirement of a computer for every kid is an overwhelming asking. I have friends and family dat teach in da city, most have to buy every little thing they need to teach, like paper, pens, chalk, tissue paper… ect. because da district is too poor to provide dat. While da asshat makes some decent points, his one system model does not solve enough for everyone. As a Nation, we’ve essentially tried a one system model for da last 50ish years. While that works well for some, it does not work well for all. So why he would profess that a one size fits all model would work here and for everybody is as confusing as his insistance dat he’s always right.

          • DavidChicago

            So, are you trying to say no iPads for everyone? Actually, CPS has every kind of school you can think of. There are Military Academy’s (all four branches) Magnet schools, College Prep schools, Vocational schools, Charter schools. They have some of the best schools in the state and a lot of the worst schools in the state. They don’t have any money. Disclosure, I chose to live in the burbs where the average schools are better.

          • joelferguson

            From my understanding, which is limited, since i pay more attention to what Indiana, specifically lake county, is doing than i do to what is being done in chicago… those other schools you mention are mostly private schools, like Mount Carmel? Public schools are more rigid in what is considered accptable teaching methods than say a private school, i.e. innovation and change is slow to occur if at all in the public education sector.

            ipads for everyone is a nice idea, but i find it impractical, especially if you let the kids take ‘em home. By the end of the school yr 1/5 of them are broken, lost or stolen. A cost that usually the school district, even rich ones, would have trouble affording. They just implemented it in my own local community. I’m eager to see the first year results and hope I’m pleasently dissapointed.

          • DavidChicago

            Actually all of those are public schools, but you do have to apply, qualify, etc. It’s brutal on the kids 7th grade year, because it;s like trying to get into a good college. As for the iPad’s, I’ve seen districts do or I should say “try to do it” but you’re right they get broken and Apple has screwed the whole process up by tying them to iTunes.

    • Aslan Balaur

      And the kids lose necessary social interaction needed to learn how to deal with others in the adult world.
      Also, most people under 150% of the Federal poverty level would not be able to afford the computers and internet connection needed for on-line learning. Even IF they could, they cannot afford to have one parent be a stay-at-home parent for either computer based or text (books) based home schooling, especially if it is a single parent home, as so many are, these days. Your idealized world where everyone has access to the technology to keep their kids home from a traditional school is as big a fantasy as arming teachers makes schools safer.

      • Alan Batterman

        1. They can learn social interaction in various activities outside of school. They do not have to be jammed in a building with a thousand other kids to do so.

        2. Poor families can be subsidized with the use of a computer and bare bones Internet connection.

        3. The parents can either work different shifts or one parent can telecommute if both parents have to work.

        • Dragontech64

          2. Poor families can be subsidized with the use of a computer and bare bones Internet connection.

          And WHO is going to pay to subsidize poor families with computers and internet connection? You have Right Wing so-called Christians already screaming that the poor are getting subsidization for their food (SNAP) and housing. If we aren’t supposed to be spending our tax monies to feed and house the poor, what makes you think you can sell spending our tax money to give them computers and internet?

          3. The parents can either work different shifts or one parent can telecommute if both parents have to work.

          That is assuming jobs are plentiful, or that employers would offer any sort of flexibility in scheduling, or that the employer offers a telecommute option. Jobs are STILL as scarce as hens teeth because without the middle class having discretionary funds to spend, there is no market demand to drive more jobs, and employers are demanding more out of employees for less money, since they know in this economy they can do so. They’ve already used ALEC to push legislation through to take away MOST workers rights, and are bribing Congress to get workers rights even further weakened. Your “solution” is just not realistic.

          Also, if the parent is telecommuting to be the stay at home parent, they need the computer to telecommute, and the child would not be able to use it to do their school work. Or are you suggesting that the government subsidize TWO computers so that they can stay home with their kids, and the necessary broadband internet to make that work?

  • Swiggy

    Wonder if the NRA is interested in getting into the insurance business.

    • loki_thegod

      That’s a great idea, and all of their members could sink their lives’ savings into the fund to back the insurance policies! Great idea!

    • Michael G Quigley

      yeh they should but their money where their mouth is but they aren’t that stupid.

  • Bill Yeager

    pwrserge appears to be a troll on this thread, with nothing to back up anything he says. pwrserge mentions the “FBI Uniform Crime Report” to generically back up his claims. He doesn’t actually link to it, so I will: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

    Spoiler: The FBI reports don’t actually say what he says. Read them if you like, your tax money pays for them. There’s good data there, but the report on “defensive gun use” isn’t from there. It’s from the DOJ. I posted the link to that in a previous comment. But I’m done. Folks like pwrserge cannot be reasoned with. I post the links for anyone else who wants the real data, without the false conclusions attributed to them.

  • DavidChicago

    Insurance companies are socialist? Using socialism to make a profit? Dude, maybe you should check Wikipeida or something. Insurance companies are for-profit capitalistic enterprises, all they care about is profit and how to get out of paying loses.

    • Jack Dingler

      Having the public pool money to help out other members of the community in distress is socialist.

      But perhaps you’re saying that redistribution of wealth is not socialism, if somone is skimming off the top. Then it’s capitalism. It’s that your argument?

      Because insurance corporation redistribute wealth from those with the ability to pay, to the less fortunate, while someone skims off the top, they magically cease to provide a safety net for the less fortunate and become a purely capitalistic enterprise that does not contribute to the well being of the community or those that pay in. Right?

      • Jhary Kenshura

        I mean, you really really have no idea how insurance companies work, do you?

        • loki_thegod

          That’s why every person pays the exact same amount of money for their insurance policy.

          • Jason Tadd Jackson

            Every person doesn’t pay the same for insurance. They use pools to asset risk which determines how much you pay for premiums. Since they can’t predict what will happen to you in life they group you with people that are similar e.I. black male 30-35 non-smoker, and based on that determine how likely you are to file a claim. The higher the risk the more you pay and the less coverage you get because insurance companies are for profit entities,

        • Jack Dingler

          No I don’t. i have this idea that people pay into a funding pool, and if the terms of their contract is met due to a circumstance that meets the requirement of the contract, then the pool pays out a contractual fee.

          In return for this clearly socialist arrangement where a group of people contribute regular payments for the common good of the community / participants, the entity running the pool will extract a portion to pay employees, overhead etc… and if it’s not community organization like some are, then owners / investors will extract a portion of the pool also.

          Now this is exactly what socialism is about. People pooling resources for the common good.

          So clearly , all of this must be wrong.

          Now you tell me how there’s no pool, no one pays in and the system doesn’t pay out. Explain how it’s completely missing socialistic features. Explain how resources are not pooled and then allocated according to need.

          • Jhary Kenshura

            No. A company preforms risk assessment, and then tells other people for a certain amount of money each month, they will be covered in case some agreed thing that is unlikely to happen, happens. The company then invests this money, making a profit as long as it’s risk assessments have been done properly. If nothing happens, nobody gets any money. If it does, it’s not paid out based on need, or to everybody, but only to those affected, and only for those pre-agreed upon terms. It has zero to do with what’s good for the community or for it’s participants, and everything to do with what’s good for the company. Nobody has to be in it, and those who are in it have wildly different things they get out of it, and if the insured thing never happens, then everybody who contributed got screwed, and there is no re-distribution. If there is no redistribution, then there is clealy no way this is a socialist organization.

            By your definition every single company that has public investors is a socialist organization. Oh and by the way, I’ve never gotten a damn thing for the flood insurance I have to pay on my house, and I never will. That’s pretty capitalistic and not socialist.

          • Jack Dingler

            This would’ve gone better if you had actually read what I wrote.

            Funny, I said much the same thing you did, such as that it’s a contract, and you said no it’s not a contract, it’s a contract. You said I’m wrong then rephrased my argument.

            Socialism is a social contract. And the participants must meet the contractual obligations in order to reap the benefits. You’re saying insurance doesn’t work this way, because the participants must meet contractual obligations to reap benefits.

            Consider another socialist contract. The community pays into the fire department, buy equipment, paying salaries. And yet most of the public never sees a direct benefit from this expense. In order to see a direct benefit, your house has to catch fire. Much like with a socialist auto policy, you have to have an accident to be considered for a payout.
            The indirect benefit is that if your neighbor’s house catches fire, the
            fire department is likely to put it out before your house catches fire
            too. With a socialist auto policy, if you’re hit by an insured motorist then the pool pays you money even if you’re not in the pool. Super Socialism! An indirect benefit is that people get back to work quicker with less difficulty, helping the economy which is more socialist feel good stuff.

          • Jason Tadd Jackson

            The public doesn’t see any benefit for paying their firefighters. Are you an idiot. The benefit is having someone to save. your ass when there is a fire. Insurance companies are for profit, by the very definition they aren’t socialist.

          • Jack Dingler

            You should read what people write before replying.
            I wrote that we get a benefit from the fire department, you said I’m wrong, we get a benefit from the fire department.

            Who told you that profit and socialism don’t coexist? And why did you believe them?

          • Jason Tadd Jackson

            Sorry the stupidity of your initial comment got to me and I couldn’t finish. Apparently according to you any company that requires a contract is a socialist organization. Because there is no difference between a social contract and a private contract right.

          • Jack Dingler

            Let’s consider a couple of scenarios…
            My city’s public water supply is socialist. Public water supplies were created originally by wealthy people who were watching family member die from the plague. They had the bright idea that if they could prevent poor people from getting sick from drinking bad water then they might not die from the disease that was ravaging their city. So as a means of socialized medicine, they invented public water supplies. Keep in mind that conservatives hated the idea as a handout to the poor. Why couldn’t they keep carrying buckets down to the river?

            But this socialist water supply system requires that I sign and maintain a private contract. Doesn’t that make your brain want to explode?

            And What about Nationwide Auto Insurance? They are non-profit, yet require private contracts. Non-Profit! Private Contracts! Socialism!

            Your brain is exploding again, right?

          • Jack Dingler

            I don’t think you have a clue what socialism is….

            My city water supply is socialist, and yet I have to sign a contract to get service.

            Does your city give you water without a contract?

            Are you so brainwashed by the MSM that you have no clue what the term, ‘The Commons’ means? Have they wiped all of the education from your brains?

            If they have, read up on it. Recover your sanity and the ideals that kickstarted this imperfect nation.

          • Jason Tadd Jackson

            Actually no I didn’t sign a contract with my water company. And just because you do sign a contract doesn’t mean something is socialist. When you apply for a job you sign a contracts is that socialism, no. You need to learn the difference between a for profit company and a public service one.

          • Jack Dingler

            The insurance co and it’s participants are the commons in this case. You have an extremely narrow view of what a community is or commons is. In the case of socialism, the community are the people that are bound by the social contract. In this case, the community are the people who hold insurance polices with a common corporation.

            If you’re argument is that an insurance co, never makes a claim, then you’re right, it’s not socialist. But if it does pay claims, then it is socialist.

            Well yes, a public company is property held in common. That is a marriage of socialism and capitalism. It’s exactly what socialism is about.

            Socialism is a contract. Contracts are the DNA of socialism I think you may have the idea that contracts and socialism can’t coexist.

      • DavidChicago

        What?! Public pool money to help others in need? I don’t see my car Insurance company giving money to people in need! They use the pool to spread risk! There is not a public pool of money for people in distress at AllState or Kemper or State Farm. What are you thinking?!

        • Jack Dingler

          Ok, you’re being very clear.,
          You’re saying that when someone in your pool has an accident and needs money for medical expenses and or repairs, then this person in need does not receive moeny from the pool?

          So you’re saying that the pool is not a commons, because it does not pay out.
          And because it does not payout in the case of an accident, then it can’t be socialism, because it does not allow people to pool their resources to help others in the pool, when they have an accident.

          • DavidChicago

            Jack, you really need to have a talk with someone in the Insurance industry. The risk is spread over many people. Many people pay in, and the insurance company plays the odds that only some will require a payout. This is more akin to how Roulette works then how socialism works. There is no subsidy for “poor people in distress”. It’s gambling on a statistical model. Your all hung up on Healthcare and Obamacare. This is just plain old, straight forward insurance like you buy for your house or car. Ask your agent if that is socialism. Sheesh!

        • Jack Dingler

          So you’re saying that if a customer is in an auto accident, and distressed, then they won’t pay.

          You’re saying they aren’t socialist, because they never pay claims.

          Then you are correct. If they never pay claims, then they don’t have a socialist business model.

          So why are you letting them steal your money? Are you a fool?

          • DavidChicago

            What I am say Jack is that you have no clue how auto insurance works. Maybe you should call an insurance agent and have them explain it to you. Clearly, you don’t understand Socialism either, but that’s a much longer discussion. Accident liability insurance, either you pay to have it and you are covered or you don’t pay and you are not covered. This isn’t very complex. It’s all about the numbers.

          • Jack Dingler

            I’m aware of that. But though you deny it, I’m also aware that when a claim is paid, pooled wealth from thousands of customers is redistributed to pay the claim.

            When you have an auto accident and need life saving surgery, the money to pay for it comes out premiums paid in by the other customers. Of course, you’ve also argued that a person who needs their medical bills paid isn’t needy… But if you’re not needy you can choose to pay out of pocket.

          • DavidChicago

            The money doesn’t come from pooled wealth! It comes from the profits! You pay for the insurance coverage, you don’t get it back at the end of the year for not using it!. It’s not communal resources, its the resources of a capitalist entity. They take the money paid in premiums and turns that money in investments. If they need to pay a claim it comes from the profits of those investments. Any left over money, hits the bottom line. why don’t you go look up socialism on Wikipedia.

          • DavidChicago

            On a further note.. you point about surgery is totally screwed. It’s very simple. I have car insurance, I hit you, you make a claim. If the amount of my insurance doesn’t cover your surgery, oh well. You’re welcome to sue me, but the auto insurance company isn’t obligated to pay any more that the policy is worth. If I don’t have any auto insurance, good luck with that surgery, hope you can pay for it. Of course you can sue me, but if I don’t have the money, tough beans.

  • theo j. williams

    The insurers are only being logical. Few if any teachers have the firearms or tactical training necessary to be of any use with weapons in a shooting situation. (And they need better pay and resources just to adequately handle what they’re already expected to do.)

  • Louiggi

    You’re being satirical, aren’t you…?

    • irisman

      At least, let’s hope he’s being satirical.

  • the7thson

    The insurers are making a purely POLITICAL decision. Allowing staff members, who already have concealed carry permits, to carry at the school actually REDUCES the risk of a shooting or injury at the school EVERY school shooting in the last 20 years has occurred at a school WITHOUT armed and trained staff.

    • bobby

      Is it a political decision when they charge young boys more than girls for driving insurance? It’s based on statistics and data – dd you read the article? They never changed their policy, it was the law that changed. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it was political.

    • anneymarie

      “Allowing staff members, who already have concealed carry permits, to carry at the school actually REDUCES the risk of a shooting or injury at the school”

      [citation needed]

      • the7thson

        The reduced risk is inferred from the fact that, in the last 20 years, every mass shooting has occurred in “gun-free” zones.

        • http://lawyersforwarriors.blogspot.com/ rewinn

          Now you are just lying. LOL.

        • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

          because it was mandated all schools became gun-free zones, that’s saying all school shootings occurred where students were. Or all school shootings occurred because the shooter found firearms and ammunition.

        • Ignatz

          How is a Colorado movie theatre a “gun-free zone”?

        • Philthy Phil

          So, you actually do not have any “evidence” whatsoever that there is any “reduced risk”, you just made it up. Right, I thought as much.

        • Aslan Balaur

          Columbine had an armed guard. Didn’t seem to help.

        • Melissa McCann

          Nope, Only 1/3 of all mass shootings took place in “gun-free” zones (seriously, you’re calling Fort Hood a “gun-free” zone?).

        • bfreesun

          I’m Irish and live in Europe and even I know Virginia Tech had armed police and Columbine had armed guards

        • Michael G Quigley

          How many schools are armed?

      • DavidChicago

        Reduce risk of.. ? What? Of a shooting? Oh that maybe.. but what about the number of accidental discharges? Insurance companies aren’t worried about mass shootings, they are worried about a gun going off accidentally. The Reduced risk is about violent crime, not a reduction in the risk due to accidents. Duh! Where there are more guns, STATISTICALLY there are more gun accidents! Accidents lead to insurance claims. This is not about the NRA, liberals, CCW or school shootings, etc. This is about RISK!

        • bajacalla

          anneymarie’s post is actually the [citation needed], since the quoted post provides none for his half-assed assertion.

    • loki_thegod

      I’m guessing they don’t cherry pick the numbers to fit their narrative. Insurance companies can’t afford to be political.

      • the7thson

        “Insurance companies can’t afford to be political”? Really? Have you never heard of Progressive Insurance? They are one of the largest financial contributors to progressive political causes.

        • Jedediah Ghouled

          Maybe when the State of KS tries to get rejected by Progressive you can whine all you want.
          That said, EMC is a strictly Republican outfit. They did what every other insurance outfit is going to do; run the numbers and go, “oh crap.”
          Free hand of the market and all that…
          http://vote.sigfig.com/org/Emc%20Insurance/-

        • Philthy Phil

          You are more than welcome to try to go find some other insurance company to insure the school district. Good luck with that. And, of course, the first time there is a violent incident involving a firearm (which, there will be — count on it) you are more than welcome to take your chances in court, to get your asses sued off, and to promptly file for bankruptcy to avoid having to pay a huge legal judgement against you.

        • Roxie Deaton

          Giving money to a political party or their candidates is different from making money for your shareholders. If Progressive makes errors in their statistical predictions, they will go out of business. Progressive may donate to progressives but you can bet your bottom dollar they make business decisions based solely on whether or not they will benefit their company.

          If the decision to provide insurance will not make them money in the long run, Progressive will not write the policy.

        • bajacalla

          donating to political causes isn’t the same thing as basing policy decisions on political stances. just like organizations with “Christian” or “Family” in their names isn’t the same thing as being christian or actually supporting real families.

        • http://www.lambpower.net/ Steve Dawson

          According to their website, they contribute to the Highway Safety Institute and they will match donations to whatever their employees donate to (501(c)3). Hence they have no special agenda.

    • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

      The NRA funded a study done by the National Rifle Association. No stats, just that it’s a good idea.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/nra-school-safety-report_n_2999968.html

      Huffington Post did 3 Reason’s not to carry in school. Here’s a couple of excerpts.
      Whole article here:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/arming-teachers-three-reasons_n_3053291.html

      I. Kids get their hands on most everything.
      Ask your mother. Better yet, recall how you knew where she hid the Christmas presents. Or where your father kept his gun, if he had one. My mother hid the presents in a nook at the top of the attic stairs. My father kept his unloaded shotgun in the right corner at the back of his clothes closet. The ammunition was in an orange box on a shelf in the same closet.

      II. Kids will be afraid.

      And they should be. When violent force is upheld as safety, fear and silence creep in. I have a patient who recalls his silent car rides with his father who kept two guns under the driver’s seat. Silently the boy watched, on guard, even though nothing ever happened. But then again nothing was ever said, and arguably something did happen. There was no way to talk about fear. There was no way to talk about inter-dependence and vulnerability.

      III. And this talk is necessary.
      Many kids, especially boys, learn to handle their problems with their hands, not their minds. Hence, the elementary school mantra, “Use your words.” Still, children generally make good use of good counsel. The NRA recommends that SROs be employed not only to serve as guards and law enforcers, but also to serve as educators and informal counselors within the school. Educators and counselors who are armed leaves us to question not only the adequacy of their training, but also what it means that they counsel from a position of imminent force.

      Food for thought:
      http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/arming_teachers.html
      http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/arming-teachers-wrong-response-to-gun-violence_2013-01-28.html

    • Mrs. Robinson

      Um, really? You might want to fact check that one. Both Columbine and Virginia tech had armed guards on their campuses. At Columbine the guard shot at one shooter who pretended to be hit and then fired back like a crazy person. THEN he went in and killed a bunch of high school students. The guard was no match.

    • Lisa Cronin

      The insurers are making a RISK MANGEMENT decision about how many lawsuits this is likely to give rise to and and they have decided it is not for them. I am sad

    • Aslan Balaur

      So please tell us where you got your training as an insurance actuary. Where did you learn statistic? Hmm? Because the insurance companies already know that another untrained yahoo with a gun just makes the school more at risk. And I know a LOT of people who have concealed carry permits without having ANY training.

      • searambler

        “And I know a LOT of people who have concealed carry permits without having ANY training.” ——- What state do you live in, where they hand out concealed carry permits without requiring any training at all?

        • DaddyO_969

          Um, that would probably be Florida

    • DavidChicago

      No, the insurers are making a decision based on actuarial tables. The more guns, the more likelyhood of an accident. It’s all about risk. What you don’t see, is that where there are more guns, there are more accidents. You don’t have gun accidents where you don’t have guns. It has NOTHING to do with school shootings in the past, or any of that stuff. It’s a very simple thing, in households where there are guns, there are more gun accidents. For them it’s not about school shootings, or CCW, or politics, its about statistics.

      • Thulium

        Where are the actuarial tables that show the difference in arson risks in schools that have armed teachers?

        • DavidChicago

          Dude.. it’s about accident liability. nothing more, not crime, not politics, not the 2nd amendment. The statistics show that there will be a certain number of accidents per number of guns. If there are no guns in the school, there will be ZERO gun accidents. Just like if there were no cars, there would be ZERO car accidents. Notice, in areas where there are more cars, there are more car accidents, and correspondingly higher insurance costs. Auto insurance in the country is less than auto insurance in a large city. It’s pretty simple. If you doubt it, call your local Allstate agent, he’ll explain it.

      • MountainBoomer

        And this is where the rubber meets the road. Money talks, and BS walks. The insurance companies are very, very good at figuring out risk, and charging accordingly for it. They ran the numbers, and much to the chagrin of the gun-fondlers (and my delight) they have pretty much delivered the final word:

        More Guns = Less Safety.

        Sorry, all you NRA apologists out there, but everything you know is wrong.

        Just the same, I’m hoping that you’ll come back and entertain us with some loopy conspiracy theory about President Obama’s secret grip on the Insurance Industry.

    • bajacalla

      insurers don’t make political decisions. you obviously know NOTHING about insurance policies and risk assessment. you are making ignorant statements.

    • Clayton Littlejohn

      Two points. You need to take account of accidental shootings to calculate the total risk of shooting. While there might (might!) be a deterrence factor if teachers have guns, there is the increased risk of accidental shooting that the insurance company needs to cover. Also, there was an armed guard at Columbine. So, “every” is too strong.

    • Dan Haney

      It’s not “POLITICAL” these are exclusions the insurance companies have
      had long before this bill became law in Kansas. If they had just
      implemented this exclusion, then you may have a valid point. Just because they have a “concealed carry permit” does not mean they all know how to safely discharge the gun if needed to.

    • Bruce

      So now you think the insurance companies are being political. These people have highly trained actuaries that calculate the statistical risk they insure. This is math my friend. I know teabaggers are anti science, but please educate me, are you anti Math too?

    • Chris Kirby

      The7thson, maybe you didn’t know, which is fine, but the Columbine school killings happened despite having an armed trained guard on campus at the time it happened.

    • AVRCStalker

      Yelling doesn’t make it correct the7thson. Insurance companies aren’t in business to make political decisions and teachers aren’t necessarily trained to use firearms. Your analogy doesn’t hold, as simplistic as it is.

  • http://lawyersforwarriors.blogspot.com/ rewinn

    …and the flaws in the survey methodology are, to be kind, HUGE. This is a classic case of false positives in small sample sizes. If nothing else, the desire of gun nuts to portray themselves as heroes in their heads and to people talking to them on the phone would account for most of the responses. There is also the high likelihood that some people wish to screw with the survey by reporting DGU that never happened – why not? there’s no penalty to lying to a survey-taker.

  • elizapar

    Apparently there is no common sense in Kansas.

    • DaddyO_969

      It is the home of Westboro Baptist Church and laws forbidding eating Corn Flakes on Sunday…

  • mikeatle

    Poetic irony of this magnitude is like a rich dessert following an exquisite meal. It’s almost too much to bear. Almost.

  • DavidChicago

    Phil is absolutely correct, and it’s not even about a violent incident. Any accidental gun discharge is going to cause an insurance review. Period. That’s how insurance companies work. As he said.. go find another company, good luck with that.

  • LiveFreeOrDieAmerica

    Of course – makes total sense. NOT! The risk is apparently much less leaving the entire school unarmed and open for business for any two bit criminal that wants to take advantage of the situation. What a bunch of uninformed morons, fear mongering over a gun in the hands of a good guy instead of one in the hands of a bad guy.

    • chrisfs

      It does make sense. Insurance companies have a long history of insuring schools where teachers and custodians don’t have guns. They have a very good idea of the number of school shootings that will happen over an average year. They can plan for that and set the premium accordingly. What they may not have is a good idea about the chance of an accidental shooting or gun theft in a school with x number of armed teachers and custodians. Insurance companies hate uncertainty because it’s an easy way to lose lots of money.
      Or they do know the chance of someone getting accidentally shot by an armed teacher(or their stolen firearm), and with X number of armed teachers in the schools every school day, that chance turns out to be higher than the chance of a lunatic showing up at a school and shooting people.

      In that case, it’s a losing proposition for the insurance company, and they aren’t going to be on the money losing side just to comfort someone else’s political views. they are doing this to make a profit.

    • The Other Bob

      Spoken as someone without the slightest idea of the statistics involved.

  • DavidChicago

    People…! there are a lot of folks here who think this is about gun politics and are wiling to cite all kinds of things. This is about Insurance! After reading most of the comments below it is clear that many people do not understand how insurance works. I suggest that you call your car/home or business insurance agent and ask them how insurance works. Then you will understand why the big insurance companies don’t want to get involved in this.

    • Sandra J Limjuco

      yes, it’s about insurance and the safety of our schools. As a teacher, I can tell you that having untrained people armed in our schools is a horrendous idea. Kids get into everything and our jobs are already overloaded, now you want us to be the security officer as well? Trained is key word here. having untrained armed individuals is very high risk, which is WHY insurance companies want to jack up the rates. Because you are putting the schools at a higher risk of an accident occurring.

  • chrisfs

    It seems the legislators who proposed this law never bothered to research this aspect (i.e never bothered to ask schools…) before putting it through. Nice going guys.

    • Michael G Quigley

      Your talking GOPhere they legislate by stupidity

      • Русская мафия уборщик

        you’re*

        • Charlie Phinn

          *ur

  • Michael G Quigley

    makes statisitcal sense if your in household that somone owns a gun your are 4 times more likely to be a victim of gun violance. Same would over time be in schools. Insurance companies should just increase the premium four times the current rate based on this acturarial fact.

    • Kellie Rae Nicholson

      The new report that Obama requested shows that in recent years the number of murders with a gun includes 61% suicides. That’s almost 2/3 of all murders. So, yes if you have a gun in your home, the chances of you committing suicide are greater. If you’re going to state statistics, then you should clarify and tell the truth, rather than omit pertinent details to make it look like your chances of having an accident or a criminal using your gun against you are greater than saving your life. Automobiles can also be dangerous, but they are not illegal. Should a gun owner be trained and extremely cautious? Yes, but stop making it look like guns jump out of a drawer and kill people on their own. Accidents with a gun are a small percentage, with mass murders being even fewer, which is what began the whole outrage. So, parents either want their kids to be protected or they don’t feel the threat is great enough. Which is it, people?

      • Sandra J Limjuco

        Suicides, how does this make the stat any better??? An impassioned person, at the heat of the moment, has an armed weapon. Brilliant. Or they can go for a walk, talk to a friend/counselor/priest/… How many of those suicides were underage?? That’s the problem, a weapon of devastating consequences is too readily available. And the latter point, either we don’t care enough or the threat isn’t great enough, those are our choices? No, the threat is great enough for us to want to take strong measures of limiting gun ownership to sane, law abiding citizens who have undergone background checks and by limiting the 30-round magazine weapons. But money won out, we were brain washed by these big organizations that said our children weren’t important enough for us to want to give up (fictionally) our 2nd Amendment Rights (that were never really threatened). So here’s one for you, what’s more important, keeping our children safe by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals/insane or the Fox News phony conspiracy theory about 2nd Amendment Rights??? Oh wait, Congress already answered that, the GOP voted against 80% of voter’s wishes and went with big money. Good job voting those guys in.

    • Thulium

      That would be true if the insurance was ONLY to protect against gun violence. I think insurance for schools generally covers a lot of other risks that would either be reduced or not affected by armed teachers.

  • Kellie Rae Nicholson

    Helloooooooo! Of course there are more firearm accidents where there are guns. You couldn’t have a traffic accident without a car, right? If parents are so worried about their kids, then they might want to kick in for the insurance. Or perhaps ask congress to stop supporting the pharmaceutical industry, which recommends psychiatric meds that warn “may cause suicidal or homicidal behavior” for angry young men.

  • Janice Pushinsky

    The GoP want everyone especialy poor folk to have guns in hopes we all kill eachother out of existance.

    • Kenny

      The GOP wants to enrich their financial backers..NRA, gun manufactures, Koch Brothers.

      • LawStudent21

        Exactly. Anyone that does not acknowledge that fact is lying to themselves. NRA has played up this fear of gun legislation as gun sellers/manufacturers turn in record profits before Obama takes everyone’s guns away…wow and it hasn’t happened yet? Imagine that.

        Meanwhile, kids keep dying and the world keeps laughing at our stupidity.

  • Don Berry

    Answer seems easy to me: knock all the teachers down to minimum wage, use the $$$ to pay the increased insurance premiums. Big corporation wins, quality of education might suffer a bit, but who cares? …everyone can pack a sidearm. What’s really important here anyway? (sarcasm mode off)

  • Polish_Princess

    The law that REALLY throws me is the right to carry concealed weapons in bars and sport events. What could possibly go wrong with testosterone fueled armed guys, right?

    • Ron Beyer

      The Michigan legislature passes a law allowing for this and the governor was set to sign it the day after the shootings at the Sandy Hook school. Needless to say it didn’t get signed.

    • searambler

      Testosterone, alcohol, team loyalty and fanaticism, and modern semi-automatic weaponry. Yeah, that recipe always ends well…

    • http://freelab.org.pl/ Petros

      You know, the overpopulation problem etc…

    • Bad Bob

      The most dangerous activity I have done recently is leave a Titans game with all the drunks just as you describe.

    • Noël West

      Mix in the minimum blood alcohol level in those places and it’s just… I dunno. A massacre?

  • Polish_Princess

    But as to the issue of arming teachers, it is clear to me that anyone who proposes such a law has not been in school since they were a student. The job of the teacher is the STUDENTS not the emergency event. If there is a fire, they do not put out the fire – they guide and manage the students. . If there is a traffic accident, the teachers keep the children safe – they do NOT direct traffic or tow cars. Asking teachers to abandon their students during an emergency does a disservice to kids. Teachers are NOT babysitters – they are professional child experts with dedicated roles.

  • Jim Wetherell

    The law of unintended consequences in action. Maybe the NRA would like to get into the liability insurance business.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sabreean Brea Plum

    You’re right, they don’t jump out of drawers. They don’t have to, they just lay around in living rooms fully loaded and wait for small children to pick them up. In case you haven’t been reading the news lately.

    • Kellie Rae Nicholson

      Which is why gun safety and training are so important. If a parent would allow their children to drive a car and cause an accident, we hold them accountable. If we started putting them in jail when their kids kill with their guns, I think they might be more careful.

  • http://www.lambpower.net/ Steve Dawson

    Yup, I was sorta having some fun.

  • uaskigyrl

    Oopsie Doodle!

  • Marci Weber Ramirez

    I am offended by the tone of the comment from the Iowa insurance agency. I am not JUST anybody. I am a TEACHER. However, if I were told to carry a weapon, I would not.

    • Ariel Garcia

      Are we reading the same article? What is there to be offended about in their statement? There is no mention of a problem with letting “just anybody” have a firearm. As a teacher, I would expect critical reading skills to be at a higher level. How can you even be offended if you wouldn’t even carry a firearm in the first place? Geez.

      • patchbran

        oops. i thought she was being sarcastic. oh no…hope i haven’t offended her by speaking about her in 3rd person while she’s right there…

    • Jon Peterson

      Shockingly, teaching credentials have absolutely no relevance with regard to your ability to safely handle and discharge a firearm. In a venn diagram showing “anybody,” with a subset labeled “individuals trained in the proper use of firearms,” given only the information that you are a teacher I would place you outside that subset.

      For the purposes of discussing whether the people carrying firearms are insurable, you ARE just anyone.

  • DewyB

    No chance of dying walking down the street? No one ever killed by a car driving into the building they were in?

    The point of the “4x more likely to be killed by gun violence if you own a gun” takes into consideration there are many folks who DO NOT OWN GUNS but are killed by them every year.

    I’m all for poking Big Pharma in the eye… but don’t confuse the issues. Guns kill, own one and drive your odds of getting killed by a gun up. Guy was recently killed by cops watering a lawn with a nozzle sprayer… an actual gun would not have helped him. A couple of little boys in the news lately setting off guns in homes lately with fatal consequences because the family owned guns TO PROTECT THEM!

    Guns are single purpose… to kill. Cars, pharmaceuticals, hammers, knives… they ALL have other purposes besides killing.

  • cvryder2000

    And will the NRA jump into the breach to cover these schools? I think not.

  • TheKaisho42

    The state of Kansas will either find an insurer who will cover the schools (for an exorbitant fee, of course) or, Kansas will self-insure the schools and pass laws to indemnify the gun toting staff along with the school boards, from being held liable in case of stupidity. Those are weird, but viable options. What isn’t viable is the state admitting that the law is stupid and repealing it. That is not in the cards, people, so get over it. The state will find a way to keep the law on the books…when the legislatures of any want any kind of tomfoolery done, there never seems to be a shortage of determination to “get ‘er done.”

    • 7up98682

      And Kansas is a red state, isn’t it. Figures!

  • DaddyO_969

    Of course they are. Math and Science go hand in hand, like ignorance and bliss….

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Duane-Carroll/100001539765644 Duane Carroll

    Every gun purchase should come with a lawyers contract!

    • Vizier of Truth

      And a required liability insurance policy, like driving a car.

  • timfromla

    Oops, them idiots in the state forgot that insurance is a free market corporation, and as a for-profit corporation, are obligated to make a profit for their shareholders. Teachers with guns…now is that logical? Nope. Too risky.

    • Lucas Stratton

      Which is an extremely liberal stance, YOU people think because one owns a gun they are a killer, don’t know how to use one, don’t know how to store one safely, yup we are all just a bunch of red necks that go around shooting in the air and at innocent civilians, How does one going through law enforcement training differ than one who has 20 years in the military? Have ya ever noticed a lot of the MILITARY get out and join Law Enforcement. Imagine that, and if you think the schools would put a non trained individual Teacher or other in the school with a gun you are out of your minds. The People protecting Obama are not Law enforcement wake up people quit watching the news and get educated.

      • Sam

        YOU seem to be missing the point. The law allows teachers and other personnel who are not trained properly to carry weapons in schools and that is a safety risk. There are many, many responsible gun owners out there. However, not all of those have been trained (by law enforcement, military, whatever) to deal with a life or death situation and those people having their weapons in public in a high-stress situation can be dangerous. Responsibility doesn’t take the place of training and if you aren’t trained I don’t want you around my kids with a gun.
        And by the way, the people protecting the president ARE trained law enforcement personnel. You don’t have to be a “cop” to be law enforcement. Perhaps you should check your facts before you tell others to get educated.

      • xX_JMO_Xx

        And like a typical “Knuckle-Dragger” you make a sweeping generalization that isn’t even true. The facts are, if you own a firearm and keep it in your home, you are more likely to face an early demise. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

        1.) Teachers are not police officers, or military, they are civilians. To expect them to perform like an officer in the would-be event such as a shooting, like an officer is delusional.

        2.) As a self-identified liberal, I think it is perfectly fine for people to own guns, however, I do think, like driving a car, that a person must be able to certifiably demonstrate that they know how to properly handle and use each class of weapon they own. This means of course I support mandated training and certification for anyone who owns a gun or plans to own a gun, and yes that means a registration requirement of the weapon as well. *Gasp, not a registration requirement. And yes, I own firearms, and I support such a measure, I don’t live in fantasy land where I make believe I can take on the US Military, like so many gun nuts do.

        3.) If teachers elect to carry a weapon to the classroom, then I do expect that the teacher should be expected to register and maintain a level of training and certification equal to that of law enforcement.

        4.) Any teacher who carries a weapon to the classroom, should be required to maintain no less than a million dollar personal liability insurance rider, should the teacher behave negligently and as a result of the negligence a student/co-worker is shot or otherwise harmed/killed as a direct result of the firearm.

        5.) The teacher should submit to annual screenings, particularly mental health, and should inform administration of any pharmaceutical drugs with mind altering effects, since a person under the influence of a mind altering substance should not be handling a firearms, especially in a school.

      • G. Fawkes

        I’m trying to understand your point, but it’s tricky with your atrocious punctuation. That said, I’ll posit that military training and law enforcement training are quite different. Given the clues in your post as to your political posture, I’m almost surprised you don’t know that—except that I’ve noticed that many who share your political posture aren’t very intellectually curious.

  • Jason Tadd Jackson

    The secret service are in fact law enforcement they were originally created to investigate money counterfeiting

    • theabby

      They also look into mail fraud and Ponzi schemes…

  • http://www.facebook.com/timothy.e.wall Timothy E. Wall

    Lucas, have you ever, ever served in any of the armed forces? Ever been through boot camp, even? Are you seriously equating military training with police training?
    I suspect you’re one of the myriad of movie and TV viewers who suppose that everyone who gets their hand on a gun becomes either a Hero or a Villain. Get real.

  • cdb5556

    Imagine the stupidity..passing a law that insurance companies tell you will cause them to drop coverage and/or raise rates dramatically. Oh, wait..this sounds suspiciously like Obamacare. Never mind.

    • 7up98682

      @cdb, Was wondering when one of the haters had to drag the POTUS into it. Never fails with the low informed.

      • cdb5556

        Just a “hater”? oh, come on 7up, you are slipping. You forgot “bigot”, “racist”, “homophobe”, “republi-tard”, and all the other names you kind, gentle, accepting liberals like to label those that dare disagree.

        • patchbran

          you forgot teabagger

        • Vizier of Truth

          don’t think 7up forgot, was just had a bit more class than you

    • patchbran

      oof. you’re stuck on stupid w/ obamacare there, sparky. how about getting stuck on the topic @ hand? or going on over to the fox news page if you need company.

      • cdb5556

        What IS the topic, genius? the article points out the unintended consequences of laws passed to solve some perceived problem. My argument is based on the most obvious example. If you liberals don’t like it, show me where the correlation missed the mark. So far, I’ve just been called a hater and stupid and told to leave. Guess that’s the fall-back tactic when you can’t take logic, huh?

        • patchbran

          the topic is:
          Teachers with guns law backfires in Kansas, insurance companies refuse to renew coverage for schools

          there. as you can see, the word obamacare is nowhere to be found

  • petersdraggon

    Why don’t they pick a teacher or two (according to school size) that are interested and willing, have all the mental tests in place to insure they’re not a loose cannon, pay to send them to training, then deputize them so they would fall under the auspices of a police officer or guard to meet the insurance requirements, and then you’d be covered hopefully.

    • Amelia Elias

      And in this current fiscal climate where we can’t even fully fund educational programs, who is going to pay for that? Personally, I think having more guns in schools is a TERRIBLE idea, and I would pull my kids out of their high school if their teachers started packing. It’s just asking for trouble. BEGGING for trouble. The whole thing is just a dumb idea!

      • petersdraggon

        I’m not advocating the guns, just saying if they’re going to have them at any cost, they might as well do it right to lessen the chances of something going wrong. We are entering a period where all schools will end up having an armed guard- in some of the big cities they already have to have metal detectors, security, etc.

    • patchbran

      you’ve never taught school, have you? bless your heart.

      • petersdraggon

        I am a big supporter of teachers and I didn’t say I was a proponent of having guns in school; merely stating that if they were hell-bent on having them, there should be some methodology that makes common sense. I did in fact attend school whereby we had to have an officer on duty due to the race riots that were going on during the late 60’s and early 70’s, been there, done that, so stop with the condescending remarks.

        • patchbran

          i said taught school, not attended, if that’s not too condescending for you. now if you don’t know the difference between the two…

    • frozen01

      At that point, wouldn’t it just make more sense to hire a trained guard?

      • Betty Caron

        As I understand it Sandy Hook and Columbine both had trained guards and police officers on site and it made little difference as the shooters were so well armed and quick that they couldn’t have made a difference. When the next shooting happens, and it will, the same scenario will occur.

  • theabby

    What? No watching Fox news? I don’t know if I could survive no Hannity…:(

  • Scott Smith

    Just because they’re trained doesn’t mean they can handle the situation. Are we talking extensive weapons training,or just how to hold and fire the weapon? If I’m correct, the military, and possibly the police,too, go through simulation training. You will be asking a teacher to make a split second life or death decision. Will they be able to take another person’s life? Will they be able to determine, in a split second, if the person walking out of another classroom, armed, is the gunman or a colleague?

    Will OSHA require them to wear riot gear? Or even a bulletproof vest?

    • patchbran

      as a teacher, let me answer this: no to all of the above. there’s a reason why someone goes into a profession requiring him or her to carry a weapon & why someone does not. why someone goes into medicine and why someone does not. why someone scrubs toilets and mops floors and why someone does not.

  • duckthing

    The free market has spoken, and it says this was a bad idea.

    • cdb5556

      just like Obamacare?

      • duckthing

        Sure, though I’m not really sure how that’s relevant to this story.

        • cdb5556

          both laws passed to try to address a problem, without realizing the problems that would result in the insurance area.

          • Kyle Wheaton

            For-profit health insurance should die in a fire, be outlawed, and buried under a 50 ton stone, never to be seen again. There’s no good reason why we, the American People, cannot have equal access to full, high quality healthcare, except for one thing: Corporate Greed.

          • cdb5556

            yeah, Kyle, we can always have single payer government healthcare like Cuba. After all, they’ve done such a good job managing the post office and Amtrak.

          • Matthew A Shine

            And yet, medicare enjoys a pretty high ranking in both general public opinion polling and by those using it and it is, by the way, a government run program. Now, I understand that because this contradicts your argument and it is, unlike Amtrak or the PO in the same field, that you will not want to admit it, but that’s okay. Everybody else knows you’re a fool for your persistent comments having NOTHING to do with the main article, even if you won’t see it yourself.

            Now, getting back on topic, arming teachers and/or janitors is a horribly unsafe concept. First off, no insurance company in their right minds will want to under write those districts due to skyrocketing risk rates. Secondly, school systems that already struggle to pay for books, teachers, etc, now have the additional burden of buying firearms, ammunition, training for those even willing to arm themselves… this is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

            Reality is that anybody who is conscious and aware KNOWS there is a growing problem. In my area alone (in a red state, mind you) since the 4th of July around 15 kids have killed each other all in separate incidents. We all know there is a problem, the issue is figuring out how to solve it. Some places want more guns, some want less, some don’t want the argument to focus on guns at all.

            Kansas, for better or for worse, has decided to go with the “more guns” option. Personally I think this is folly for a multitude of reasons, but I guess only time will tell.

          • cdb5556

            “And yet, medicare enjoys a pretty high ranking in both general public opinion polling and by those using it and it is, by the way, a government run program”, If this is your best example, your argument is weak since this “high ranking” program is due to go bankrupt even before social security according to the CBO and SSI audits (now, who is the fool?) . As far as “the topic” you wish to get back to, I am for using ex military police, retired police for security. Your “less gun” option essentially means leaving schools as “soft targets” for loonies that want to emulate the wackos that kill lots of innocents to make a name for themselves on their way out of this life. Frankly, there is no “best” choice…just bad and worse.

          • Matthew A Shine

            Medicare and SSI are in danger as they get raided so often. The right had the chance to modify Obamacare before it passed, but choose to ignore that opportunity. I would prefer a full single layer system personally.

            I never said I was for less guns, just that Kansas’ plan was bad. Personally, I agree that it is a ‘bad and worse’ option. I do think that putting more guns onto the street will not solve anything, though.

          • Betty Caron

            As a teacher, I wouldn’t carry a gun in school and would probably quit if asked to do so. What could go wrong??????

          • frozen01

            Note “for-profit”, cdb5556.

            Germany has not-for-profit insurance paired with a private health care system that provides everyone in the country with healthcare. They’re doing pretty well.

            If a politician dared to mention dismantling the single-payer healthcare systems in the UK or Canada, his or her campaign would be over very quickly. They love their public options.

            It’s also kind of funny that you would choose Cuba as your example. Cuba’s healthcare system is actually well respected around the world, especially for a country with few resources. They have a lower infant mortality rate and longer life expectancy than the US (one of the highest life expectancies in the world, actually). Not saying I’d want to live there, but you should probably do some research before pulling a country out of a hat.

          • cdb5556

            Frozen01-I will be the 1st to admit that we pay too much for our world class healthcare system. The current system is broken and needs to be fixed. I just don’t believe in a big government solution. Our tort system is one big problem. I am betting in Germany, Britain, Canada, Cuba or any other health care paradise you care to mention you won’t find OB/GYN doctors liable for lawsuits when a kid is diagnosed as “ADHD” at 16 and the parents want somebody to blame. Ask what your doctor pays for malpractice insurance. I know my wife’s OB delivers babies for half the year just to pay hers. If government run systems are so good, why do Canadians flock to clinics on the US border for MRI’s and CT’s that they would have to wait 6 months to a year to get at home? Ask some doctors in Canada or Britain what they think of their system.

          • msLou

            World Class? Recommend you research where the US stands in relation to other countries. You may be surprised. First in COST..not quality or outcome. As for your assumptions, I don’t know one Canadian or Brit that would prefer the US system over theirs…not one. Some wealthier Canadians may opt to seek certain tests across the border..but it is certainly not flocks of people. They simply can’t afford it.

          • Betty Caron

            I even read that Canadians buy short term health insurance when visiting the U.S. in case they get sick here. Otherwise they end up paying huge costs here if they end up in the hospital. Otherwise, they have great healthcare for all and don’t go bankrupt if they get sick.

          • lex hunter

            exactly!

          • Nigel Anthony Sellars

            Insurance companies, however, have not opposed Obamacare because it opens other opportunities for insurance supplements, including protections above the base coverage the Affordable Care Act (to use its proper name) offers. Health insurance companies realize the ACA is not a threat to their bottom line and, in fact, their risk is significantly lowered, while their income will benefit. Having guns in schools, however, leaves the insurance companies exposed in numerous ways and all they can do is raise their premiums, which might either force school districts to cancel their insurance or force school districts and the state legislature to increase school mill levies and raise property taxes. The financial cost will outweigh the questionable benefit of guns in schools. Similarly, there is no opportunity for profit for the insurance companies, who also would bear all the risk. Their best course of action is to cancel all the existing policies. The fiscal cost to Kansas could be immense, especially if the gun law quite likely fails to prevent the killing of even one teacher or student.

            While the free market usually obstructs, or simply fails to deliver, socially positive benefits, it positively is perfect in punishing really bad ideas like this one. The power to deny insurance is the power to destroy.

  • De Neice Kenehan

    Courthouses next.

  • Scott Davis

    Prisons have long ago learned not to have any firearms within their perimeter. A moment’s inattention, or a surprise swarm of prisoners around guard(s) and a prisoner has the weapon. If three High School jocks want a gun, just come up from behind a teacher and tackle him/her, then use it to harvest an arsenal from all the rest. Or, do you really believe that a “good guy” can never go bad? That all teachers are in control of their tempers at all times?

  • patchbran

    you know what i notice? a lot of the military get out & do not become teachers. now i’m not making any analogy here, but since you have, i was compelled to point out that w/ what you have seen & what you have been through in serving your country, imagine the good you could do in a classroom. imagine the good being in a classroom would do for your psyche.

    & how, in an emergency, you would know how to protect your students & colleagues b/c of your extensive training. so rather than thinking about arming people who don’t want to be armed, think about a solution YOU can offer.

    • Lucas Stratton

      I will post to you since you seem more interested in the issue than how I spell or punctuate. I would love to teach and such but unfortunately I am unable to do so since I am 100% disabled due to something that happened in my 20 years of military service. I agree that we with prior service have a lot to offer if it be teaching or other I guess that is what I was trying to say in my other post that yes there is a difference between the two but the reality is both are trained to protect and serve. Both have firearm experience and are trained to shoot. In fact we had law enforcement that would train with us on firearms. My point on teachers being armed is that they will be trained and certified, one shouldn’t just assume because the law passes that just some random teacher with no qualifications is going to pick up a gun and start packing. As for the other comment of law enforcement protecting BO counterfeiting is tracked by FBI not LE and so is Mail fraud and ponzi schemes. These are both Federal crimes. I didn’t realize that to post one needed a masters degree or a liberal license I thought all that was needed was an opinion because that is all that these are are opinions. Have a great day God Bless and America Bless God.

  • petersdraggon

    Makes sense to me.