A new Kansas law allowing gun owners to carry weapons in public buildings, including schools, has thrust a major Des Moines-based insurer into the national gun control debate.
The EMC Insurance Cos. insures 85 percent to 90 percent of all Kansas school districts and has refused to renew coverage for schools that permit teachers and custodians to carry concealed firearms on their campuses under the new law, which took effect July 1. It's not a political decision, but a financial one based on the riskier climate it estimates would be created, the insurer said.
"We've been writing school business for almost 40 years, and one of the underwriting guidelines we follow for schools is that any on-site armed security should be provided by uniformed, qualified law enforcement officers," said Mick Lovell, EMC's vice president for business development. "Our guidelines have not recently changed."
In the gun-rights debate it's really difficult to find an objective opinion. But here's one. These guys have no stake in the debate, per se. They're only interest is making money and they understand that concealed carry teachers and custodians would make for a "riskier climate."
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Here's the thing: A scientific mind doesn't accept things just because an expert says them. How did this company arrive at their decision? For example, if they made their assessment forty years ago, that was the early seventies. Legal concealed carry wasn't available to most citizens then, so there were no data to work with.
ReplyDeleteOne more example of corporations telling government what to do. Gun manufacturers want more guns, in schools and everywhere. Insurance companies want guns only in the hands of "uniformed, qualified LEO"s, like say, Chris Dorner.
ReplyDeleteWhile they fight over market share, We The People have made it clear we don't want guns in schools at all, but we have no say in the debate, since we don't have representatives in the legislature, like the NRA does.
Speak for yourself. I want to be allowed to carry in my classroom, and a lot of my colleagues have the same opinion.
Delete"Here's the thing: A scientific mind doesn't accept things just because an expert says them. "
ReplyDeleteYet another ignorant comment from innumerate fool.
Actuaries are mathematicians; indeed, they make their living on hard mathematical, empirical calculation. Here's what an actuary does: he or she analyzes risk--or the probability of something happening (or not)--and assesses a cost based on that risk. They then set prices to underwrite that risk.
Really, Captain Obvious? Tell me something I don't know. Perhaps you missed the part where I discussed how risk is assessed and how we aren't told it here?
DeleteReally, Greggy.
DeleteThat's the way it works among educated people with scientific minds.
You can't complain actuaries are biased since any bias would harm their bottom line.
Problem for you, Greggy, is that you have no, zero, zippo, squat scientific data or evidence showing gunloonery isn't a public hazard.
Since you're only capable of infantile language, I can see why you have such a hard time with this. Two points, though:
Delete1. Since I have no definition of the word, gunloonery, I have no way to decide what evidence is available or relevant.
2. We're not given the methodology for making the assessment of risk here. In fact, the article says that have no way of determining the price of the risk. That says to me that they have no data.
Greggy, you probably want to wear nothing but a thong in your classroom as well. But that doesn't mean you should.
ReplyDeleteMikeb, if you're going to tolerate comments like this one, you lose all credibility in your efforts to tone down the insulting language on this blog.
DeleteActually, I thought that was pretty funny. But, you should know about losing credibility. You're the guy who mixed up the words sexist and sexual and refused to admit the mistake.
DeleteAre we to conclude that all insults are fair game, or are you merely being the kind of whiny brat who shouts insults at his classmates, then runs to stand by the teacher when they come after him?
DeleteAnd yet, gun control freaks want those of us who own and carry guns to be required to have insurance. But that couldn't be a backdoor way to ban gun ownership, no could it?
ReplyDeleteNo, that's exactly what they say it is. You're just a paranoid and insecure man who sees conspiracies where there are none.
DeleteYou want insurance for gun owners, and here we see that insurance companies don't want to issue policies of that kind. I call that a potential backdoor ban. What do you call it.
DeleteMike B wrote, "These guys have no stake in the debate, per se. They're only interest is making money ..."
ReplyDeleteNewsflash: "scientists" and "businessmen" are just as susceptible to irrational fears or bias as anyone else.
So let's look at Utah which eliminated all "pistol free zones" for citizens with concealed carry licenses around 2006. Where are all the unintentional shootings? Where are all the teachers who were having bad days and shot the students? The answer: there are zero events.
Want to know why there have been zero events? Because people who are disciplined enough to finish college, keep a job teaching students and keep a clean criminal record are disciplined enough to NOT fondle their handguns and they are disciplined enough to NOT shoot students when they are having a bad day. Those are the FACTS and that is why armed school personnel will NOT increase risk exposure to the insurance companies.
- TruthBeTold
Utah is an anomaly. Insurance company experts know this.
DeleteUtah is a case study, not an anomaly.
DeleteUtah is an anomaly? How about other states where schools are not "pistol free zones"? Again, zero events.
Delete