Armed Teachers Now Trained in 63 Ohio Counties

[De Selby]

You still don't get it.  No, we should not crunch the math.  I'll try small words this time:

Teacher wants to carry firearm:  That is personal choice.  It only affects that individual's behavior. Liberty.  Good.
Teacher/student/parent doesn't want to be "around firearms": That is forcing other's behavior to conform to your wishes. Bad.

 

Thats only true if you assume freedom to be there.  Not so in this context.  And the choice to do or not do things like, say, drive a car or carry a firearm absolutely does affect other people.  There's an accident rate for each, and they ought to be evaluated if we're talking about a place where many of the people there have to be there.

"Someone else wants to increase risk of death to people around them, FREEDOM!  I want to minimise mine and not be around the risky behaviour?  NANNYSTATER!"

[TommyGunn]

I think DeSelby has a point.  (I never thought I would say that)  The students don't really have a choice in being at school, the teachers do.

Yeah ----on the top of his head.

Armed  people are, overall, more a benefit to society than a detriment.

And the IS  the matter of freedom.

[De Selby]

Yeah ----on the top of his head.

Armed  people are, overall, more a benefit to society than a detriment.

And the IS  the matter of freedom.

Do you not see that you've basically assumed away the comparative risk there?  My point was "we should probably crunch the numbers and see."  You've now boldly declared the number to be in favour of armed teachers.

See what's missing?  Not even the napkin equation mak drew up.

[TommyGunn]

Do you not see that you've basically assumed away the comparative risk there?  My point was "we should probably crunch the numbers and see."  You've now boldly declared the number to be in favour of armed teachers.

See what's missing?  Not even the napkin equation mak drew up.

I suppose we could all sit down and figure out comparative risk with regards to not only rtkba but other Constitutionally protected rights as well.....and I doubt that the Constitution would stand up well under that type of mathematical scrutiny.

I have experienced enough death and tragedy in my life.   Not once had I sat down and figured the mathematical odds, every single time it has blasted me in the face and cut me off at the knees.   
Doing the math might make some people feel better  but it won't make a funeral easier or pay for a hospital bill.
The only time I recall it being entertaining was when Mr. Spock would tell Captain Kirk the odds of his plan working was 1 in 4,546.98876344, Kirk would respond, "you're stats are, of course, absolutely accurate."  Then Kirk would shoot the monster with his phaser and everyone lived happily there after.
I'm not Kirk,  and you're not Spock,  and real life cannot always be broken down into some statistical analysis.

[dogmush]

"Someone else wants to increase risk of death to people around them, FREEDOM!  I want to minimise mine and not be around the risky behavior by forcing people to change their behavior/ do what I want NANNYSTATER!"

FIFY.

Look it's really very, very simple.  If your idea for minimizing risk in your life requires you, and only you, to change your behavior, it should be allowed.*  If your idea of minimizing risk in your life requires you to force other people to change their it's crap, and should not be allowed.

Your new behavior will change the risk profiles of those around you.  They are free to notice, and change their behavior as they wish.  That's where "Freedom is risky" comes in.  Concurrently we should hold people responsible for their actions and the outcomes of such.  i.e. you can carry a gun in school to protect yourself, but if you accidently injure someone you are criminally and civilly liable for it.

I think DeSelby has a point.  (I never thought I would say that)  The students don't really have a choice in being at school, the teachers do.

Well we nannystated away parent's right to make their own and their children's risk decisions.  That doesn't mean it's right, or even OK or smart, to double down and nannystate away other adult's decisions making in response.  We have similar arguments every time some government program comes up for discussion.  Health Care Reform was a biggy.  "We don't have free markets now because we have government intervention, and that intervention is shitty.  Clearly we can only have more intervention!!"  And now, as the marketplaces and co-ops fail: "Our previous doubling down on nannystating didn't work, clearly we need to get the government MORE involved!!"

*To forestall the incoming redacto ad absurdium let me stipulate that there are some behaviors so absurdly risky as it is reasonable not to allow.  i.e. driving backwards on an interstate, using suppressive fire from mounted machine guns to cross parking lots and the like.  But if the risk is so low that some kind of study needs to be done, then it's low enough we should allow the behavior.

[zxcvbob]

I agree with y'all, but I still think DeSelby has a point that armed teachers increases the risk of a negligent discharge and that should at lesat be considered.  But armed police are responsible for lots of negligent shootings, and society seems accept that risk.  I think the risk here is lower.

[Perd Hapley]

No, he doesn't have a point. If he had been the first person in the history of teh America to ever notice the risk of unintended consequences to being armed for self-defense, he may have had a point. He obviously is not. Said risk is the whole reason why the teachers went through any kind of program, and why many states require some kind of training, in order to carry concealed. It's a risk that's been discussed a million times, and the past few decades have shown it does not offset the advantages of carrying weaponry.

[Firethorn]

I honestly wonder how the injury rate from gun accidents compares to the risk of mass shootings.

The majority of firearm injury and death is deliberate in nature.  Suicides are the biggest cause of death, and more people are murdered with firearms than die from accidental shootings.

[makattak]

The majority of firearm injury and death is deliberate in nature.  Suicides are the biggest cause of death, and VASTLY more people are murdered with firearms than die from accidental shootings.

Firearm accidents are miniscule, despite the very large numbers of firearms in public hands. (Interesting thought: I'm wondering how many of those firearm accidents are from arms NOT in the public's hands...)

[T.O.M.]

A question came to mind...I wonder what the insurance providers are saying to the school districts.  See, my wife works in the insurance industry.  Probably not a surprise to you guys, but there have been talks within the insurance industry to make firearms presence/ownership a disqualifying factor for homeowner liability insurance.  I doubt that it is a political/anti-gun thing, given how much her company pushes Republican candidates on the employees.  It's about numbers...what is the expense for providing insurance coverage for gun related claims versus the loss of income from refusing to insure gun owners.  The fact that it hasn't happened yet means that so far, the numbers (read:dollars) favor providing insurance.  There may well come a point in time when rates will rise for gun owners.  Time will tell.

How does this relate back to the OP?  Risk management types for schools have got to be screaming about increased risks from allowing an employee to carry at work.  By allowing it to happen, the school district assumes a degree of vicarious liability for things that happen with that firearm.  Because we all know, if a teacher fires a shot, be it intentional or unintentional, there will be a lawsuit.  Heck, if the teacher brandishes, I'm sure some granola crunching parent will scream about emotional distress to little Johnny and demand thousands of dollars in compensation.  I'm surprised that the insurance companies are allowing for coverage and not demanding that the "no weapons at school" rule be maintained if the policy is to remain in effect.

Oh, any word on the teacher's union position on this?  Just curious...

[freakazoid]

What about the students who think the armed teacher is a bigger risk than the next mass shooter?  That was my point.  Seems to me in evaluating the answer of who should be made to suck it up (ie, does the teacher who wants to carry suck it up, or do the parents and students more worried about the carrying teacher?) we should probably crunch the math on competing risks.

I'm not sure how that was a comment on "my feelings about firearms" or projection, considering that I'm perfectly comfortable with them.  

What about the black students who think the white teachers are a bigger risk than the next mass shooter?

[MillCreek]

Most (large) school districts are self-insured to a high level of retention, and most smaller school districts belong to a state risk management pool, in my experience.  Although I would be curious to know the risk management pool's thoughts on the issue.

In a somewhat related point, general liability insurance for a healthcare facility (hospital, etc.) is more expensive, sometimes considerably so, if you have security armed with firearms.

[Perd Hapley]

I've long wondered about insurance's nervousness about firearms, since they aren't a net risk to the owner. Is it just a matter of firearms being something for which the insured is liable, versus the risk of being attacked, which insurance won't have to cover?

I apologize if that is a dumb question. I know jack about insurance.

[De Selby]

No, he doesn't have a point. If he had been the first person in the history of teh America to ever notice the risk of unintended consequences to being armed for self-defense, he may have had a point. He obviously is not. Said risk is the whole reason why the teachers went through any kind of program, and why many states require some kind of training, in order to carry concealed. It's a risk that's been discussed a million times, and the past few decades have shown it does not offset the advantages of carrying weaponry.

That's great - who crunched the numbers and demonstrated the advantage?  It'd be good to see it.

[De Selby]

Firearm accidents are miniscule, despite the very large numbers of firearms in public hands. (Interesting thought: I'm wondering how many of those firearm accidents are from arms NOT in the public's hands...)

This is also true of mass shootings, which is why I think the comparison is important.

[dogmush]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUpbOliTHJY

[Perd Hapley]

That's great - who crunched the numbers and demonstrated the advantage?  It'd be good to see it.

You'll note I was speaking of the gross advantage, not the net. There's obviously an advantage (even if it were true that the risk was greater), since armed people regularly repel attackers, by using firearms.

De Selby, you're the one with the burden of proof, here. The fears of greater firearms accidents, crime, etc, have never panned out, when it comes to concealed carry in general. If there is some greater risk to carrying inside a school, versus outside, you should explain what it might be.

[MillCreek]

I've long wondered about insurance's nervousness about firearms, since they aren't a net risk to the owner. Is it just a matter of firearms being something for which the insured is liable, versus the risk of being attacked, which insurance won't have to cover?

I apologize if that is a dumb question. I know jack about insurance.

Liability insurance generally covers the legal/financial responsibility of the insured to others.  Liability comes from the actions or inactions of the insured.  If the insured incurs liability, you look to the insurance company to pay it.  

Accidents (negligent discharges, shooting the incorrect person, allowing children access to firearms, etc.) or intentional acts related to firearms by the insured/agents/employees of the insured tend to generate more liability than other actions or inactions related to other physical objects.  Some physical objects are more risky than others based on the statistics of the insurance actuaries who set the insurance premium.   Firearms, swimming pools, diving boards, dangerous animals, vehicles, or storage of hazardous materials are examples of things that make insurance companies nervous and they therefore charge a higher premium to cover the risk.

In terms of being legally liable for someone being attacked at your home or commercial premises, the insured will usually have no or minimal liability for that, although it would depend heavily on the circumstances of the event and the statutory/case law of the jurisdiction.

So from the insurance standpoint, having firearms or armed personnel is more risky than not having firearms or armed personnel.  So if you want to have firearms or armed personnel, you have to pay more to get insurance for it.  

[dogmush]

So from the insurance standpoint, having firearms or armed personnel is more risky than not having firearms or armed personnel.  So if you want to have firearms or armed personnel, you have to pay more to get insurance for it.  

I wonder what will happen if juries start awarding damages for failing to protect people you an insured disarmed.

There is already (I believe) the concept that a store or what not is required to provide some basic level of safety.  That's where the whole "Slip and Fall" industry comes from.  We need to stretch that to "If I am insured by a criminal after you deprived me of means to protect myself, the insured is liable."

[MillCreek]

I wonder what will happen if juries start awarding damages for failing to protect people you an insured disarmed.

There is already (I believe) the concept that a store or what not is required to provide some basic level of safety.  That's where the whole "Slip and Fall" industry comes from.  We need to stretch that to "If I am insured by a criminal after you deprived me of means to protect myself, the insured is liable."

When I read about these things in my legal and insurance journals, it seems to be fairly consistent that for most of these events, the juries and appellate courts find that the insured had no duty to protect or had no duty to exercise extraordinary care to ensure the safety of patrons, visitors or business invitees.  Therefore, jury awards for this are not being given out.   The cases on this basis against the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado were recently thrown out of court on similar grounds, I believe.

[makattak]

Which is why I ran the back of the envelope numbers. From my quick estimation, I'd  say it's  a good tradeoff.

This is also true of mass shootings, which is why I think the comparison is important.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

[zxcvbob]

So from the insurance standpoint, having firearms or armed personnel is more risky than not having firearms or armed personnel.  So if you want to have firearms or armed personnel, you have to pay more to get insurance for it.  

The insurance company's interests are different than the insured's interests.  It's more risky for *them* because they are not the ones getting shot at.

[Perd Hapley]

So, I was right? Awesome! I'm a little bit giddy. It's my first time.

[De Selby]

You'll note I was speaking of the gross advantage, not the net. There's obviously an advantage (even if it were true that the risk was greater), since armed people regularly repel attackers, by using firearms.

De Selby, you're the one with the burden of proof, here. The fears of greater firearms accidents, crime, etc, have never panned out, when it comes to concealed carry in general. If there is some greater risk to carrying inside a school, versus outside, you should explain what it might be.

What exactly is it my burden to prove?  I asked a reasonable question and suggested we should know the answer before promoting changes that might possibly result in more damage than just having no reaction at all to mass shootings.

What I got was an odd mix of "there's no possible way carrying at schools could cause more harm than mass shootings!" And "even if they do FREEDOM demands it be allowed!"

I've always thought arguments in favour of gun rights were strongest when not clownish, or deliberately based on ignoring numbers.

There are certainly very low numbers of gun accidents.  But then there aren't many mass shootings.  It seems to me just wilfully ignorant to not compare the numbers in this context and accept that the math which results in fewer dead people at schools is what we should choose.

[makattak]

What exactly is it my burden to prove?  I asked a reasonable question and suggested we should know the answer before promoting changes that might possibly result in more damage than just having no reaction at all to mass shootings.

What I got was an odd mix of "there's no possible way carrying at schools could cause more harm than mass shootings!" And "even if they do FREEDOM demands it be allowed!"

I've always thought arguments in favour of gun rights were strongest when not clownish, or deliberately based on ignoring numbers.

There are certainly very low numbers of gun accidents.  But then there aren't many mass shootings.  It seems to me just wilfully ignorant to not compare the numbers in this context and accept that the math which results in fewer dead people at schools is what we should choose.

De Selby has a point here. In the course of arguing, even if you'd support something on principle no matter the outcome, it is useful to be able to make utilitarian arguments as well.