A Modest Proposal
Earlier this week, there was a law suit filed and then withdrawn over the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre.
I read Tony Cornish's piece in the STrib advocating for a hearing to put armed guards in schools and applauding armed teachers too. It is a recipe for liability litigation disaster and a dangerous situation setting up significant risk.
I was appalled that he claims there are already armed teachers in
schools - there should not be. They can legally do so under this
statute:
MN statute 609.66, subdivision 1d, section 8. "This subdivision
does not apply to (8) possession of dangerous weapons, BB guns, or
replica firearms with written permission of the principal or other
person having general control and supervision of the school or the
director of a child care center; "
A suggestion that I think
makes sense in the larger context of Newtown, CT, and the lawsuits that
are already being filed or are anticipated against that school district:
Amended that statute, that section, to state that all such permission
1. MUST be in writing, with copies kept on file by the person giving permission, AND
2. that such permission must be covered by the school's liability insurance, AND
3. that the insurer must be notified that such person has been given that permission in writing, AND
4. that the person given the permission must show a current concealed carry permit.
I really don't see a lot of schools willing to pop for the additional
cost of paying for armed guards or paying for the liability insurance
that should go hand in hand with the risks that are posed by armed
teachers. But if we have made it legal, let's make it financially
responsible too.
Meanwhile, in Arizona, gun nut right wing crazy Sheriff Joe Arpaio is organizing armed citizens with firearms to surround and patrol their schools. There are few if any requirements to carry a gun in Arizona, nor does Arizona cooperate with the submission of prohibited people's names to the NICS data base -- which means that the FFL checks before someone buys a gun from a licensed dealer are checking a largely empty data base, not that there are few prohibited people buying guns in Arizona. Arizona is also one of the border states where straw purchasers frequently make large purchases of assault style weapons, and then turn them over to drug cartels and narco-terrorists while the authorities blow it off as legal citizen purchases. Are THESE the people you want to trust with guns around ANYONE, much less a school?
It should be noted, of course, that while some sort of background check
is being done on these volunteers, no mental health tests are being done
and, therefore, we won’t know if we may be sending a crazy person with a
gun to a school full of trusting kids. And even though a background
check may show some discrepancy, it is not known what level of
acceptance the Sheriff is allowing for those with misdemeanors, those
who are wife beaters, those with anger management issues; those who have
problems with alcohol and substance abuse or even some alleged but
unproven pedophilia issues. These are not the people to be sending into
schools with guns.
Why does this matter?
Anyone reading here remember T.J. Ready?
If we are arming people in direct response to a threat, real or perceived or imaginary, then it makes sense to have everyone's ducks in a row, to do so in a financially responsible manner, and in the safest possible way. We should not be taking less care with who we arm than we do with who we allow to drive our school buses.
IMO, requiring the School District to maintain insurance would kill the program.
ReplyDeleteIf a person were to sustain bodily injury from a gun, an insurance company might deny the claim if the school permitted guns on the premises.
Let's ignore the "psycho" that Representative Cornish used in his OpEd, but instead what happens when the gun is left unprotected or misused. Who is liable ? If a firearm injures someone, the school that allowed the gun to be brought onto the premises may be liable for negligence because the school knew of the potential danger of allowing firearms on the property. The insurance company would argue that by allowing guns on the premises, the school acted intentionally or should have expected that someone would be injured.
The school district taxpayers could be stuck ... the only winner would the be attorneys that would be representing all the parties.
Beyond that, should there be any requirement that the "concealed" teacher have additional training other than what is required to obtain a permit ? My impression is that The Personal Protection Act essentially is to protect "you" but now Representative Cornish is advocating for "armed guard of some type in every school” ... meaning that their scope and responsibilities go beyond teaching. IF so, the state requirements for a "conceal-and-carry" permit are too weak ... take a class get a license (one day?) ... five years later take a renewal class and pay for a renewal license. So to be a teacher, don't you have to have at least 200 hours instructional prep time in the classroom (i.e student teaching) ... but to carry a gun into the classroom, 8 hours is more than enough. Remember, the "conceal" part is optional ... get the license and you may proudly display your firearm as you walk through the school halls.
Further, does the individual have any obligation to inform the school district of any police investigations or convictions after being licensed ? Consider that since the law was changed to ease the permit access, permit holders were convicted of 882 non-traffic crimes, including 66 assaults, two robberies and two killings ... even if they are not guilty, should the permit holder have to inform the school board that they are under investigation ? Hire someone to drive a truck, you expect them to tell you when they have had an accident ... even if it is not their fault.
Also, what about the rights of other employees protected under OSHA to have a "safe workplace" and by having gun-totting teachers patrolling the school ?
To "carry" a gun may be a "right", but if you are employed, doesn't the employer have the right to determine if you are "qualified" to perform the job ... I do not sense that Representative Cornish is promoting giving the decision to the schools ... just to the individual.
Requiring insurance would kill what program?
ReplyDeleteWe don't have a program, but if one is to be instituted, there damn well better be insurance coverage commensurate with the risk, or there should be no such option for guns.
Clearly, risks go up when guns are present. As gun free zones, there are far fewer problems with guns than there are in zones where guns are permitted.
I suspect that if one looked at a cost/benefit analysis, increasing passive protection methods would be better than trying to increase aggressive measures - like guns - where there is no indication they would be effective, and could plausibly be worse than what we have now.
The other option is that if schools make arrangements to pay for on-duty police officers, however much that might cost, they could be covered by the same insurance coverage that covers cops anywhere else.
There are lots of possible options, but I would argue that if insurance does not figure into any specific proposal, that proposal SHOULD fail.
Clearly liability risks exist; the answer is to deal with them straight on, not pretend they don't exist -- especially if the only purpose of pretending the risks and liability doesn't exist is to make the NRA, gun manufacturers and gun nuts happy at the cost of safety.
Insurance is an equally important aspect of 'safety'. That is why it is required on vehicles and other things with risk, like swimming pools.
My statement that “requiring insurance would kill the program” means that if insurance is a requirement, insurance companies will demand “protection from loss” before issuing any policy. Insurance companies can pick and choose what markets they serve … without some protection, they will not participate in the program. Isn’t the requirement that all drivers have insurance to protect the insurance companies from losses by allowing them to charge a fee for “uninsured vehicles” … the insured are paying for the 1 in 8 that do not have insurance. Look at the recent vote in Congress for Sandy … the National Flood Insurance Program is in debt by $20 million … insurance companies are “paper processors” for the government. IMO, for a State to require schools to specifically assume liability from firearms will never be approved by the state legislature.
DeleteCornish’s plan makes no sense … promoting a program to put “armed guard of some type in every school” ignores the real problem … as does his comment that determining that legislation to limit 30-round magazine as “keep dreaming. It's more ineffective, "feel-good" legislation.” Look at the firefighter killings in Webster New York on Christmas Eve … now consider if Eric Thomes, the presumed killer of Cold Springs Officer Tom Decker, had decide to make himself “feel-good” by blasting away at police (and neighbors) before he killed himself ? Law enforcement officials are constant targets … look at what happened just this morning when a man fired shots about 5:12 a.m. outside the Belding Michigan Police Department. The window of a Belding police cruiser was shot out. An officer working inside the department heard the gunshots, went outside to investigate, found the broken window and saw the man getting into a van. The officer began following the van and subsequently killed the “suspect”.
As a retired police officer it is shocking that Cornish does not acknowledge that the problem is guns … putting armed guards in schools is a solution that does nothing except encourage more guns.
Liability insurance is not the answer. Instead why not tax on bullets ... gunowners are already paying sales tax on their purchases and ammo sales are soaring ... put a tax on that funds police and the judicial system. Sales tax may not stop James Holmes from purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition but more revenues may be generated than by a liability insurance program that he would probably not purchase.
"Insurance companies can pick and choose what markets they serve"
DeleteNot entirely; insurance companies are required to write certain kinds of insurance in most states as a condition of doing business in that state. What they would be allowed to do though would be to sell some of that insurance as risk insurance (an example, the only kind that repeated drunk drivers are able to buy). In some states, carriers have for example been required to offer med malpractice insurance to anesthesiologists, anesthetists, and ob/gyns as a condition of selling any kind of insurance, or any other kind of medical malpractice insurance.
Actuaries would no doubt make certain guns very expensive, and insurance to people who fit the demographics of those most likely to commit crimes, or suicide, etc. with firearms, like males in certain age brackets - problems with guns are not distributed nearly as equally across groups (an parallel would be car insurance for males in a certain young driver age range that have disproportionately high accident rates).
And just as car insurers can require minimum safety features, they could require minimum safety standards for firearms and firearm storage. I agree with the idea of taxing both guns and bullets - but what if in addition to taxing them (we already charge sales tax on them), we also required proof of insurance for the gun the bullets would be used with in order to buy them, for example? THAT would put a kink in criminals being able to use stolen guns.
Liability insurance alone is not the solution, but it could be an effective PART of the solution.
Look at the shooting in Rochester MN, where grandpa shot his grand daughter as she was letting herself in the door, having forgotten that she had been living there for the last 3 months, afraid she was a burglar. Odds are grand daughter is not currently insured, or covered under her parents health insurance. Odds are that grandpa did not have insurance on his gun, and that his homeowners policy would only cover a minimal token payment - probably under $4k - if that.
Who pays for the medical care for the grand daughter? We do, all of us. If grandpa wants a gun and uses it as carelessly and recklessly as he did in this case - not being able to see who he was shooting - then shouldn't he have to carry insurance for that?
And if grandpa should be on the hook for the damage he did shooting -----shouldn't that be just as true of the people carrying guns in schools, if Cornish and the other right wing paranoiacs get their way? If schools are going to be authorizing people to carry guns, they damned well are already liable for that; a law would simply require that they make sure they have insurance coverage for it if they do so -- and I would argue they shouldn't do so. On the other hand, when either law enforcement or a rent-a-cop security firm sends someone with a gun to protect the premises, THEY should have insurance to cover the actions of their employee too.
Bottom line, any guns in schools are liability suits waiting to happen. That should be anticipated and insurance to pay those very real costs factored in and required. If that means no guns in schools, that works for me too. But there should be no forcing the parents of students to pay for an injury from a firearm used by a teacher in school if a shot goes wrong. That should be the burden of the person with the gun, and the school, if the school authorized the person to carry a gun.
The gun nuts don't believe they will ever hit an innocent bystander; many of them think they can shoot better than the police, and live in a superhero with a gun fantasy, not reality. Reality is that the target often is unscathed, and the bystanders left like swiss cheese.
I am not an expert on insurance (or much else) but I did read that State Farm was no longer being involved with administering federal flood insurance policies ... and they still sell other insurance products. That's rather interesting considering that the basics of the National Flood Insurance Program is that the federal government funds the program in full and the private sector runs most of its important aspects collecting fees for administrating it (of course, as you know, House Republicans are objecting to fully funding the current NFIP obligation.)
DeleteIF a company does not see advantages to being in a program where the Federal Government backs it up, firearm liability insurance would be a whole lot more dicey (unless the Feds guarantee the losses).
My gut tells me that there would be a very small buy in of policy holders .... think of the guy/gal who goes deer hunting once a year or the farmer that keeps a gun for coyotes and gophers, they will probably ignore any law -- risking the potential of a fine that they will never be in a situation that they would be asked to show proof of liability insurance ... heck, consider that 1 in 8 do not have auto insurance and still drive a car ... and what's the fine -- max $1000 --
I agree that any guns in schools are liability suits waiting to happen, but do you think that there is enough support in either chamber of the legislature to get a liability bill out of committee that would require that ?
The school boards (and ultimately, the taxpayers that would be pay for the consequences of the "employees" actions) should want it ... but better to NOT have guns in schools ... that should be the only issue for debate -- not whether there is a liability insurance.
IMO, the pastor in Rochester should be charged with shooting his granddaughter ... and required to pay for her medical care ... Shot First, You Pay.