A Shoe Falls On Guns In Schools.

I’ve said here earlier I do not own a gun. I’m certain my family and I are safer without guns in our home.  There are not guns in the homes of our grandchildren either so far as I know.

State and local elected officials have been engaged in chest beating these last few years saying lives would be saved if everyone carried guns.  Mass killers and home invaders would be “taken out” before they killed others it is claimed.  Any rational look at statistics and actual experiences make this claim ridiculous.

Rationality has arrived in the form of free enterprise, the insurance industry.  A major insurer now says it will not offer insurance to schools where teachers and students carry guns.

The insurance industry requires profits.  Insurance profits are made by looking at statistics.  Statistics do not include ideological passions like, “We must have guns to fight our government.”

Legislators, like those in Kansas, can offset this refusal to insure.  They can simply prevent anyone from suing for damages from mass killings in schools, churches, concerts or on college campus’.  Or, State Government, could insure all gatherings itself.  Their governments could accept the losses insurance companies refuse to take. Typically, conservative legislators would do this while saying they refuse to expand government.

Law makers who want to allow guns into every public gathering to make a political point have a tough row to hoe.  The insurance company caught saying something about safety that is not true.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130707/BUSINESS/307070054?source=nletter-top5

See us on FaceBook, Red River Freethinkers

57 Responses

  1. entech

    As a foreigner I am amazed at the subjects that bring people out of the woodwork on this site. I am guessing this one will get as much attention as the last. Gays and guns are so important to the Christians that look in and comment here.

    1. Wanna B Sure

      Actually, Isn’t it Jon that brings the subjects up, and the others respond? I would be more happy to see a discussion on the subject of crabgrass vs. quack grass. ‘Tis the season.

      1. Wanna 1:01 “crabgrass vs quack grass..”

        I do discuss my lawn on FaceBook about once a year. My advice: don’t collect clippings or leaves, don’t spray, don’t fertilize, mow at 3 1/2″ and God will see to it the bluegrass and rye will crowd out at least some of the weeds. But, wait. There is no such thing as a weed. There are just certain plants growing in the wrong place. 🙂

        1. Wanna B Sure

          Ah yes, but you avoid the crabgrass and quack grass. Neither one are lawn specific. I didn’t bring up God. More provocation? Hmmmmmmmm.

        2. A note to “Bill Smith”. I am no longer publishing posts from phony addresses. A really big brave guy/gal would tell me off right here in public.

    2. Wanna B Sure

      I do believe that most of the subjects Jon presents would appear to be provocative to many, (and I suspect intentional.) Responses would be expected. On the other hand, I have seen just about everyone on the side of non-belief come “out of the woodwork” when someone accuses those of non-belief to be immoral. An equally provocative subject. Foreign or not.

      1. entech

        The difference being that no one is accusing “The Christian” of anything except believing things we don’t agree with. Mostly it is misinformation, disinformation being stated about “The Atheist”, being lied about is more offensive than someone raising a subject on a public forum that you don’t like, especially as that is a large part of the forum.

        Now if in response to “an atheist musty be immoral”, I said, “all Christian must be bigots”, then you would have a point because the general statements about Christians is patently false, we have people that write here that are both gay and Christian.

        1. Wanna B Sure

          And many Christians don’t accuse atheists as being “immoral”.
          As for the; “Mostly it is misinformation, disinformation being stated about “the Atheist” being lied about……” Strange, when I have pointed out on several occasions misinformation, disinformation put upon Christianity. Pots and kettles. Don’t feel like the Lone Ranger. Even more falsehoods exist on other blogs. Many even more poorly informed than on here.

          1. entech

            Many don’t, more do, it is a standard line in apologetics, “without God there is no basis for morality”. The mis/dis is a line I got from you, whenI say there is a different interpretation possible is that opinion or false information? Is it false because you don’t agree with it, or do you not agree because it is false? how can you tell.

            Bit like the old thing about “Is it moral because God says so”, or, “does God say it is moral because it is intrinsically so”, and we know were that leads.

          2. Wanna B Sure

            Oh, I just knew the moral subject would get response. Not high on my list of priorities.

            As for the mis/dis, a common practice here, most often included in overly broad generalities, sometimes not even related to theology. Anyway it’s been fun, and time for bed.

          3. entech

            Interesting you should say you are not concerned about morality. I think it is important I just have a different basis for it.

          4. Wanna B Sure

            I only mentioned the morality thingie as an example of non-belief’s particular sensitivity. in comparison to the sensitivity of Christians, when comments are made that are clearly provocative. G’nite

          5. Wanna B Sure

            Entech; @ 3:59; “Interesting you should say you are not concerned about morality.” Completely out of context, whatever basis you prefer.

          6. entech

            @ 4:01 Objection to deliberate lies is cause enough, not exactly sensitive just bored with the lies.
            @ 4:07
            What context do you need? Surely Not high on my list of priorities. can be interpreted as ‘not concerned’.

        2. Wanna B Sure

          Oh my goodness. I think we hit a nerve here. ( Note to self)–dis/misinformation-misrepresentation against Christians OK to commit. Not OK against Atheists. Now it’s “broad misrepresentations” against the Christians, and “lies” when said about Atheists. Hmmm.

          Just to cover myself from more misunderstanding, I don’t think it is good from either side. Actually, being uninformed and making ignorant comments either way is not an excuse.

          1. entech

            Just read your 12:04 again.
            Quite right both sides make uninformed comments.

            However, your first paragraph is what I had in mind when I suggested you should sleep on it. I hope I don’t let myself go too far astray and say too much about Christians in general, my intent is to express my (extreme) doubts about Christianity. Very rarely do we notice atheism as a concept, most often it is about “The Atheist”. Not you but, just now, you do seem to be defending those that do.

          2. Wanna B Sure

            Entech; I have said in the past that I am an equal opportunity pisser offer, and I think I have been consistent on that. You simply appear to be predictably sensitive and defensive to your side, which includes Jon’s provocations. I understand that. On the other hand, I don’t see much correction from you when statements are received by others that are clearly not well thought out or understood against Christianity. You quite often post an (albeit slanted,) understanding of the Christian position even though you disagree. Good for you. Yet you remain silent, and even defend misrepresentations from your side, even when I know you know better.

          3. entech

            Been thinking about your 1:38 and it is mostly fair comment.

            With the obvious changes from believer to non believer I do think it would apply equally to both of us.

            Good night.

    1. Michael 1:34 “Here is a look at some statistics and experiences.”

      I presume the insurance company saw you article and still decided not to insure school where there were guns. Maybe they don’t understand the importance of gun politics.

    2. Who decided that the United States is going to stop relying on the police and make everybody an armed deputy? Personally I don’t want to have to shoot my own intruders. I prefer that the police come and round them up without a shot having to be fired. News reports already have grandfathers shooting grandchildren in the dark thinking they are interlopers. Teachers with guns will have a more likely shooting caused by an unsecured gun and an inquisitive 1st grader than a school shooter. The only winner in all of this is the gun industry that has the GOP doing it’s publicity for them. I have guns in my home, but they are locked up and unavailable except for hunting so it’s not that I have anything against firearms. Law enforcement professionals are pretty much in agreement that forcing citizens to do their own shooting can come to no good. We’ve lost our collective minds over this issue recently. No end in sight either. We’ll have to pile up the bodies of 2 year olds who get shot by their 4 year old brothers for a long time before it changes. Sad situation.

      1. StanB

        And when the response time is 10 minutes or more and your door is already kicked in the police will make nice little chalk lines around your body and attempt to find the killers.

        1. The problem with this line of reasoning is that you assume a unrealistically high rate of home invasions and armed assaults. You have a much better chance of dying in a car accident than of being accosted in your own home by armed invaders. My point is that, armed to the teeth, a homeowner ends up shooting innocent family members which happens more frequently than actual home invasions–at least in this low-crime state.

          1. StanB

            You want the real truth on family members killing each other? If you remove shootings involving criminal family members, drugs or alcohol you are much more likely to be killed by lightning then by a family member with a gun. On the other hand there are places right here in Minnesota where I live where getting shot by a stranger isn’t that unlikely.

            I had a knock at the door at 2:30am in our secure apartment building. At the door was a twenty something year old weighing in at about 350. Some BS story about his car broke down and could he come INSIDE and use my phone. I offered to call the police for him and he took off……fast. There have been strong arm robberies, assaults, rapes and terroristic threats in my building, wait for the cops! Hahahahahahaha!

            Oh by the way, helped put a perp away for 22 years in 2012. I am considered an expert witness in firearms and training by the DA. That time I was an eye witness of a forbidden person in possession of a hand gun and the recipient of a rest threat.

            Not everyone lives in a nice neighborhood.

      2. Michael Ross

        .” I prefer that the police come and round them up without a shot having to be fired. ”

        Your preference is not a major priority to criminal intruders.

        “News reports already have grandfathers shooting grandchildren in the dark thinking they are interlopers.”

        Good point there realist. Grandfathers shooting their grandkids is a huge problem. It happened twice on our block just last week.

        1. Sarcasm noted, but it actually HAS happened as little as a few months ago in Minnesota. Many more are instances of kids shooting kids. This is in the face of almost no recorded home invasions. I don’t know what everybody is afraid of shivering in their beds waiting to be killed. Extreme focus on seeing oneself as a victim of crime is a feature of narcissism. Of all the people asleep in their beds, why do people worried about intruders think they’re the ones to be targeted? Makes no logical sense.

          1. Wolfy32

            I know, I’m more worried about laying at home and wondering if I’m going to be transported out of my bed to a strange place in the middle of the night. aka “the rapture”.

          2. entech

            Once saw a sign (a photo of a sign) outside a church that said “lying in bed on Sunday morning crying out ‘oh god’ is not going to Church”.

          3. StanB

            So, have you seen the number of shootings in Chicago lately? Over 1000 wounded this year alone. This weekend 12 dead and 62 wounded and NONE of them were done with legally owned firearms.

    3. entech

      correlation does not imply causation
      Says Henry.

      Since the handgun ban took effect, the number of murders in Chicago committed using handguns has been 40% higher than before the ban, and has spiked even higher in recent years, proving that the gun ban actually served to cause an increase in violent crime.
      Says Michael’s referenced article.

      1. entech 1:35 re Michael’s article

        Good one. That article was full of causes–fewer guns cause more crime. Then, there is the “cause” of problems with heterosexual marriage. It is homosexual marriage. The link is lost on me.

        1. entech

          That is because you don’t have a god to guide you. Open up and the link will made across the void. 🙄

          1. entech

            cum hoc ergo propter hoc. or the false cause fallacy is what I thought we were discussing in this thread, I started, about Michael giving us some radio or paper person (in Australia we have a few, usually referred to as shock jocks, usually pro establishment who will say anything to support whoever pays the salary, been brought up before the broadcasting commission for failing to distinguish between paid advertising and opinion.

            The piece said that banning handguns caused an increase in murders using hand guns, there would be many other factors.
            Jon just brings up another example. The claim that gay marriage causes problems for heterosexual marriage. In this case there are so many factors that the gay issue is so far off the radar you wonder why it ever comes up.

            How about another 🙂 the fact that Jon writes something causes some else to attack him for it.

          2. entech

            More like a month, perhaps two. It would depend on how long it took for Jon to get bored and lonely on the site.

  2. Michael Ross

    Jon, I’m sure criminal gangs, including THEE criminal gang, the U.S. Gov are pleased with your position on this topic. As far as guns in schools, it should be up to each school district as to whether they want teachers, administrators, and other staff to have a gun at their disposal.

    “ideological passions like“We must have guns to fight our government.”
    ~Jon

    “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”
    ~George Washington

    But Then, I’m sure George didn’t Know half what Jon does.

    1. Michael 3:29 “As far as guns in schools, it should be up to each school district as to whether they want teachers, administrators and other staff to have a gun at their disposal.”

      In Kansas, schools have that right–most just cannot get insurance covering, for example, a kid that slips on the ice and breaks a leg and parents sue.

      I have that right myself. I’m convinced I’m safer without a gun.

  3. Candyman

    You’re pretty passionate about this issue, Jon. I was wondering if you would be willing to put your money where your mouth is and place a sign facing the street in large type so that everyone who drives by your property may easily read it saying, “No guns are in or on this property and never will be!”? You would be willing to do something so simple as this, wouldn’t you Jon?

    1. Candyman 4:18 re: would I put a sign in front of my house saying there are no guns here.

      I don’t put odd signs in front of my house.

      I do something quite similar, I put that message here for all to see. My name and address are in the phone book. I’ve made known my no guns on the residence status for a couple of years now. Not worried.

      Sorry for getting a little snarky, but I don’t use a pseudonym such as, well, “Candyman”.

  4. Henry

    Jon:“The insurance company caught saying something about safety that is not true.”

    Jon, correlation does not imply causation. Just because the insurance company does not want guns in the school does not mean the school is safer without guns. It simply means the insurance company is on the hook for more liability with guns in the school. The insurer is on the hook if a school employee discharges his gun in school. However, if reasonable care was exercised in school security, the insurer would have a very strong case for not paying on a claim if a school was shot up by a crazed moron. The liable one would be the shooter. Of course, the attorneys could find tricky ways through joint and several liability to make the school’s insurer pay, but it would be a tough case to make.

    Bottom line is the insurance company pays out less without authorized guns in the school. The kids are not necessarily safer without authorized guns in the school.

    1. entech

      correlation does not imply causation (One of Henry’s favourite bits of black and white thinking). It does not rule out a relationship between cause and effect. Correlation does not rule out causation.

      In fact many of Henry’s fellow “Christians” are guilty of this faulty causation fallacy, take for instance the often used:
      Morality in this nation has worsened at the same time that adherence to traditional Christian beliefs has declined. Obviously, the latter has caused the former, so encouraging Christianity will ensure a return to traditional moral standards.

      An example of an implication being valid would be to say: “As the sun becomes visible over the horizon we have daylight, when it drops below the horizon and is no longer visible daylight ends. Therefore the sun is responsible for daylight”.
      I suppose we could find another explanation, perhaps it is the case that “one of Gods angels drags the sun across the sky, the sun has no light of its own, it is the reflected radiance of the angel that causes daylight”

      The first example is science the counter explanation is what one might expect from creation science. On the other hand Genesis may have something in it, this night and day business is just what God wanted when he started everything, the fact that it is different at different times of the year and at different points of latitude and longitude is just his way of testing us, if we find scientific reasons instead of faith, we fail and are doomed – in so many ways we are setup to fail makes you wonder if their really is a benevolent and loving creator.

    2. Henry 4:18 “Jon, correlation does not imply causation…The insurer is on the hook if a school employee discharges a gun in school.”

      And, the insurer is on the hook if a child discharges a gun in school…and if a child,or, staff goes nuts and starts shooting everyone. It is on the hook if an intruder takes a gun from a staff and shoots someone.

      Insurers treat statistics as causation all the time. You and I do as well. Personally, I’ve come to the conclusion the odds of me or a family memeber being killed or injured is greater with a gun at the ready in my house than are the odds an intruder will harm someone.

      1. entech

        Insurance companies are a gambling machine, they calculate the odds and set a price for the policy against the potential payouts, that most have been so prosperous and successful for so long is comment enough. If they decline to take a bet it must be taken seriously.

        1. Henry

          I do not disagree with the school’s increased liability with authorized guns in the school. I disagree that children are safer with a blanket prohibition on firearms preventing trained staff from quickly stopping a situation.

          There is technology out there that prevents firearms from falling into the wrong hands. It is called a “safe” that can be placed in a discreet, accessible location.

      2. Henry

        Jon:“Personally, I’ve come to the conclusion the odds of me or a family memeber being killed or injured is greater with a gun at the ready in my house than are the odds an intruder will harm someone.”

        Jon, I surely hope you and/or your family members aren’t dealing out of your home. Statistics point out that this kind of behavior is the majority of in-home shootings. I really do think your concern is misplaced as you do not seem the type to promote violence, therefore being a good candidate for owning a gun.

        I would recommend a .22 for starters, but for some odd reason, the ammo is unavailable.

    1. dan

      Ross,

      Great article. As always, guns will remain the focus of the government for removal. Just the notion that Americans have them keep our government in check. Yes, I’m a crazy right wing maniac who served the country in the profession of arms and raised my right hand and swore allegiance to the Constitution of America while the liberal, snot nosed liberals were crying that they were out of toilet paper.

  5. Brad

    If I had to place a bet on the gun issue, it would be on the corporate wing of the Republican party. They usually seem to prevail over the emotional driven gun worshipper wing and the religious wing. The reason is exactly what Jon indicated: PROFITS and MONEY.

    Not that this will stop the gun worshippers from continuing their emotional driven hysteria to hoard more guns and ammo (that actually serves the guns and ammo industry), but public policy will be influenced by the adult wing (corporate wing) of the party. Meanwhile, the gutless Democrats will continue to flounder on the issue and fail to take any meaningful stand (except Republicans disguised as Democrats such as Heidi Heidtkamp).

  6. dan

    American Conservative Response to Britian: In April 1775 Gage learned that weapons were being gathered in Concord, and he sent British troops to seize and destroy them. Local militia confronted the troops and exchanged fire. United States of America, declared independence on July 4, 1776. Today, America is the greatest country on the face of the earth no matter how loudly the liberals cry. Bo ho bo ho.

    American Liberal Response to Britian: In April 1775 Gage learned that weapons were being gathered in Concord, and he sent British troops to seize and destroy them. When the troops arrived, they found that the local peace loving liberal people had already destroyed the weapons, they might hurt someone. They proceeded to kiss King George’s ring and a$$ and then pledge allegiance to the royal throne. Today, America’s have a heavy British accent and pay taxes to the royal family.

    1. entech

      Even by 1775 Britain was a constitutional monarchy and no one paid taxes to the crown. Taxes are paid to the government, in spite of a huge income from property owned by the family they still get an allowance from the government.

      If you wish to argue that the British people should not give financial support to the royal family I would agree, although I think you will find that it is actually less of a drain on the public purse that a presidential system.

      Incidentally I agree that the first scenario was the correct one in the circumstances.

      1. Stanta

        But we are still citizens, you are subjects and do NOT have the equivalent of the bill of rights.

        1. entech

          True. But as usual with exceptions.

          Just getting my visa today for my sojourn to the land of Ramadan, warm there getting colder here (happy about global warming though, just had lunch ‘al fresco’; but I digress, about the visa, my European passport says British Citizen.

          Our constitution is a little different, not one document but many. It is part of our conceit that we think we do not need one, you on the other do need something as your history is the overthrow of government by armed insurrection and declaration. The basis for your just war of independence was “fighting for your rights as Englishmen”.

          Since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK’s supreme and final source of law. It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament. There is some debate about whether this principle remains valid, particularly in light of the UK’s membership in the European Union.

          Bill of rights; 1689.
          http://www.constitution.org/bor/eng_bor.htm

          Having said all that in a fit of patriotic fervour, living in Australia I fulfill the definition, “no patriot like an ex-patriot”, I do think legal documents should be made up, in many ways similar to yours. I would particularly like to see the separation of church and state and the separation of powers between government and law.
          Having the monarch as the titular head of state, the head of the state church, and, the head of the armed forces practically defines anachronism.

Comments are closed.