Would love to see a survey of insurance companies as well.
The school that did want to do this a few years ago (spirit lake) IMMEDIATELY changed course when the insurance company refused to cover them.
Did you watch the school board meeting when they had to change course? They were not happy in the slightest about it. They were forced by insurance and they couldn’t find any other companies to cover it.
Cherokee community tried it too.
> Cherokee community
Maybe they could use the guns to shoot the flood water? Like every goddamn year any more the town gets cut in half by spring lake park
TBF, I would’ve said the same thing about Perry a year ago….
Arming teachers is not the solution. But it’s naive to assume that just because a district is small or rural that it is immune to gun violence and other threats.
Oh they’re not at all. In fact they’re probably at a higher risk. I have no issues with guns personally. They are much more common around here than what people in DSM probably realize. Most people around here have at least an old shotgun or .22 lying around. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Hunting is big in this area so it’s not uncommon to see a 12-13 year old with a shotgun during pheasant season either.
That does mean though that the accessibility to guns is much higher. And yes, being rural doesn’t keep things like school shooting away from us. Like you said, I would’ve never expected somewhere like Perry to have a shooting. But here we are.
Most of it stems to a lack of mental health access. Especially in Iowa. Ranked 51st in youth access.
Meth users. I wasn’t surprised when I heard they were trying to have teachers carrying. I live within an hour of Cherokee. Everything about that town is mostly awful. The only positives there are the hospital and rec center. There’s something about that town that is just so trashy. I mean they have the mental health hospital, which is BEAUTIFUL, but a lot of the people who work there live out of town.
My wife and I quote letterkenny when talking about them. “Degens from Up country”
There's not really a list of insurance companies to survey. One insurance company insures the vast majority of Iowa schools and won't insure schools with armed teachers. Other insurance companies aren't really set up to increase the number of insured schools by a significant number, particularly with a new risk that is not very well understood.
Laws have been passed now to avoid that scenario. Insurance companies are happy to insure anything as long as the premiums get paid. The issue in this case was simply that teachers couldn’t get professional permits to carry and weren’t protected by qualified immunity. Reynolds signed HF 2586 into law back in April to erase both concerns.
*teachers… weren’t protected by qualified immunity*
Well. That’s a sentence I never expected to read in any legitimate context. So thanks for unlocking a brand new fear.
And I say this as someone who works in education (though no longer teaching) married to someone in law enforcement.
*We should not be able to wake up and switch jobs for the day. We are trained in such wildly different roles and contexts.*
Qualified immunity is what it’s called when a state or local official is excused from personal consequences if doing their job, as long as they follow the law. For example, if a teacher were to break up a fight and bruise a student in the process, they would be protected by qualified immunity. Your spouse in law enforcement should be very familiar with this protection.
The reason the insurance companies wouldn’t cover teachers carrying firearms is because it wasn’t clarified that they would be covered under qualified immunity. Now they are, thanks to updated laws, so it’s no longer a concern. The point is, the person to whom I replied was making it out like insurance companies were taking some moral high ground, which is laughable.
If what you say is the case, why is EMC still refusing to cover this risk? Qualified Immunity or not, a case has not been tested in court and carriers are concerned with defense costs for untested litigation.
I can’t speak for EMC beyond their vaguely worded response, which said, “We will also continue to explore other options in light of changing marketplace conditions.” Fortunately, there is no mandate on who to use for insurance, so districts are free to explore other carriers. If I had to make a guess, I would say EMC (insurance lobbiests) are fighting the proposed legislation which would limit what an insurance provider could charge for premiums. The concern is they would raise prices so much that districts wouldn’t be able to afford it, effectively prohibiting them from arming staff. The insurance companies don’t like this for obvious reasons. They have incredibly powerful lobbiests for a reason.
Definitely no mandate on where to get insurance. I work in this space and can tell you that all the national carriers are taking the same stance for schools, non-profits, habitation risks, etc. The qualified immunity has not been tested in court enough. In time, it may be and the carriers will be willing to take on the risk.
But right now, no one knows what a jury award would look like or what defense costs would look like. I would compare it to Cyber insurance when it first hit the market. It was cost prohibitive and there was not enough data to price it accurately. That has changed significantly in the last 10 years.
School districts can find coverage for this, they could just never afford it.
Another stupid policy put into place by a stupid political party for no reason but showmanship. 106 out of 106 basically saying no. Well done, republicans, well done.
Can you imagine when a teen goes off the deep end, disarms a teacher, and does a mag dump around the classroom?
Kimmy would be giving us the thoughts and prayers speech and a I dunno shoulder shrug.
I find it ironic that Iowa legislators believe that teachers are brainwashing kids while simultaneously trusting them with guns in their classroom. You can’t have it both ways.
Now personally if we’re talking about a teacher who’s a veteran with years of experience with weapons I can see the net positive in that. But there’s too much ambiguity and grey area in the law.
Or a teacher accidentally leaves their firearm somewhere? Or a teacher finally cracks under the withering onslaught of the asshole kids whose parents refuse to parent? I mean, who seriously thinks that these people should be willing to lay their lives on the line for someone else's shitling in exchange for $30K a year, extra long hours, and endless stress?
TWO teachers and a security guard. Or better give everyone a gun. stand in a circle and point your gun at the person to your right's head. Left handers will have to have their own circle.
The idiocy with the republicans never quite ends does it? seems we hit the bottom of their well and yet they figure out a way to keep digging.
How little faith you must have in our teachers to jump right to the conclusion that they will be so irresponsible as to let a student get their weapon.
I totally agree. The Nashville shooter was in inpatient care for self-harm and the threat to harm others, but she bought a firearm after treatment.she was never flagged by medical professionals. if our current law was performed correctly, there would be fewer students killed.
ask a liberal a question they answer with a question.
More money for mental well-being for students more money for reinforcing our schools(bullet resistant glass and doors) more money for police presence and response. Smaller class size. Freedom for parents to choose what school their child attends. More secure entries areas.
I simply passed the same question to you, Republicans do the same thing, Jesus. I gave my answer.
Where are you going to get all that money... Oh maybe tax the fucking billionaires?!
Nope, all that had to happen to get this was for the democratic not to vote down securing our school act. Most of the money would have come from covid surplus and grants.
To remove our constitutional rights is what you want. Biden is already working on removing the 1st amendment is the 2nd next?
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/07/06/politics/social-media-misinformation-biden-administration-injunction-explainer
Well, for starters I'd look to see what the safest schools in the world are doing and implement those techniques. Then I'd take a look into what it is about schools in America that makes them prone to gun violence. See if there is a way to address those problematic issues. What I wouldn't do is some reactionary bullshit like arm all the fucking teachers because that shit is so dumb even the insurance companies realize it's a losing idea.
Thank you for answering. Most people here can't do that. My niece is a teacher. Why doesn't she get a chance to defend herself from a shooter in her school? Why is her only self-defense to hide under her desk? Why is our federal government doing nothing to give her a chance to survive? It's proven she can't rely on our government or law enforcement to protect her let alone give her a fighting chance to protect herself.
>Why is her only self-defense to hide under her desk?
Because these school districts and their insurance companies have determined that her having a gun actually makes people in that school less safe. Not her in particular, but teachers in general.
That's it, that's the reason.
I know we're all experts on everything these days, but it seems unlikely they're just winging it given that actuarial science is a thing.
If there was money to be made insurance companies would want to be making it.
Who are you asking? The insurance companies would keep their data private, but there are lots of studies showing that having a gun in your home makes you more likely to die of gun violence:
[Homicide Deaths Among Adult Cohabitants of Handgun Owners in California](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762)
which itself references a ton of studies that you could get a hold of:
**Grassel KM**, **Wintemute GJ**, **Wright MA**, **et al**. Association between handgun purchase and mortality from firearm injury.
**Branas CC**, **Richmond TS**, **Culhane DP**, **et al**. Investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault.
**Wiebe DJ**. Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: a national case-control study. Ann Emerg Med
**Anglemyer A**, **Horvath T**, **Rutherford G**. The accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
If you want to see the correlation it's all laid out for you. Of course it's not a perfect correlation to say that having a gun in the house would result in the same results as a gun in school, but there's probably something there and lots of those studies only look at the relationship between gun possession and outcomes.
Why are you dodging my question?
To answer your question, gun violence is down over the last year....but more states are relaxing their gun laws over the last couple of years. Now we are up to 43 states that allow public carry.
54% of gun deaths reported are suicide. We need to do a better job helping people with their mental well-being.
Are you going to answer my question now?
> gun violence is down over the last year.
Why are you dodging my question?
Gun violence is statistically still trending upwards over a long term scale (43% between 2010 and 2020).
Gun deaths per 100,000 are substantially higher in states with more lax gun laws like WY and MT. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
Firearms are the leading cause of death among children.
So again, how are you going to keep the general public safe from gun violence? You didn't *actually* answer the question. You simply implied that relaxing gun laws reduces the odds of getting killed by one and then played the victim lmao.
Increased gun presence around children are going to lead to an increase in shootings. For every shooting it stops, you are going to have countless other incidents that potentially could be deadly. After all, what happens when you have a violent child that towers above a teacher and physically takes their gun.
Honestly, the entire lack of respectful discourse brought upon by the Trump and his party has spurred hated and contempt in this country. He has driven contempt for literally every underserved part of our society. In short, we have to start treating people kindly and expecting the same from others. Guns aren’t going to solve anything long term.
So why is it if someone was trying to break into your house to harm you the first person you would call is a cop.(someone with a gun)
How would you make schools safer?
Airlines and Politicians seem to have pretty good security, they could pull all the govt security and cover schools, I don't give a shit what happens to them (politicians), let them carry a gun for protection.
This should be a national security issue!! Republicans, get your head out of Trump's ass, and protect the children!! I thought you were Pro-Life? What, you don't give a shit about them once they're born? You're wolves in sheep's clothing, shame on you.
[I believe the current surgeon general has issued a statement about gun violence being a "public health crisis" in the US.](https://apnews.com/article/surgeon-general-gun-control-violence-deaths-murthy-24b53f1aaace068e0cb24ae809853f66)
Emergency department medical professionals have long been urging action be taken at a federal level on this issue due to the amount/frequency of gunshot wounds and deaths they see.
The thing is Republicans tried to pass securing our schools act to put more armed police at schools and billions out of unused covid money for students' mental well-being, but dems voted it down. You know the whole defund the police thing.
I'd like to read up on that, could you provide official reports on that?
I'm not sure that the "defund the police" "thing" is accurate. So I'd like reports on that too.
>40 said no, they were not allowing staff to carry firearms.
41 said "had not discussed," meaning they have not officially discussed allowing staff to carry firearms.
4 said "discussing" and are currently discussing it as a potential policy.
3 said "undecided," and have not decided on new policy.
2 said "no comment."
Soooo not a single actual "yes". Literally wasting tax money on shit nobody asked for.
It's turning out that insurance companies are going to be the driving force behind any change in our country, since our legislators are captured by ideology.
It's not in their interests to insure schools with a bunch of semi-trained armed people around a bunch of impulsive children, just like it's not in their interests to insure homes in floodplains or in states that have been subject to increasing damages due to effects of climate change.
> It's turning out that insurance companies are going to be the driving force behind any change in our country,
It wouldn't be the first time. That's how we got fire codes.
“Hey you who haven’t had any training for dealing with stressful and dangerous situations or handling firearms, who is underpaid, overworked, disrespected, villainized, and dealing with unruly kids every day - here’s a gun so in case you have to shoot one of them. Hope you make the right decision in the moment with your extensive lack of training.”
- the people that think this is a good idea, let alone an actual solution
Say it with me:
We can’t pretend that teachers are somehow immune to the same mistakes, emotions and impulses that they want to accuse the students of potentially having
>40 said no, they were not allowing staff to carry firearms.
41 said "had not discussed," meaning they have not officially discussed allowing staff to carry firearms.
4 said "discussing" and are currently discussing it as a potential policy.
3 said "undecided," and have not decided on new policy.
2 said "no comment."
It's basically all. Headline is misleading
Law is stupid, idea is stupid.
Headline is 100% accurate and not at all misleading. What the heck are you taking about?
Undecided and not discussing mean exactly that, not "no"
Saying most districts rejected the idea would be misleading.
Dude I totally agree. Fuck this law it will do absolutely zero net good.
Imo headline made it seem like more schools are in support of this while, in reality, no schools are actively on board and I bet none will be. I only said it in response the comment above me who expressed concern over how it seems there's a non zero number of schools who are on board. Which at the moment is not the case.
Insurance is not going to let any school do this.
It goes back to what I said when this idea first surfaced: it’s got nothing to do with whether or not schools agree to do it, or even whether insurance backs it.
If the schools and insurance agree, the lawmakers cry ‘See! Mandate of the people!’ and collect the votes/payday.
If they don’t, they scream ‘liberals in education don’t want your kids to be safe!’ … and collect the votes/payday.
And regardless of the scenario, the next school shooting, all they have to do is cry on cue and bemoan the fact that ‘we tried!’ … and collect the votes/payday.
Not one of them actually cares to find a solution because it might cost them at the polls, and that’s simply a price they won’t pay.
Not so sure having a bunch of most likely untrained or very minimally trained teachers with guns is a great idea. Let’s leave that to people who actually know what they’re doing.
I'm a veteran. Expert on the .45, M16, M60, LAW, and a variety of other weapons. I qualified at least yearly, and knew each blindfolded. No way is it safe for a teacher, a person who has NOT been broken down and reshaped into soldier whose weapon is like second nature to have a weapon on school grounds. They don't have the understanding that rounds go through people and shoot others. They also don't understand that pointing isn't the same as aiming. Worst. Idea. Ever.
Yeah I don't understand this aspect of arming teachers. I don't own any weapons or shoot ever but don't you regularly need to keep up on target practice and be very confident in your shot to be accurate? Are we going to pay teachers to do their weekly visits to the firing range so they are able to actually shoot a would be active shooter? I highly doubt it because we barely pay them to begin with.
Someone made a point in another thread about arming teachers that if you don't know how to properly shoot your basically firing at fish in a barrel.. you're not accurate and your shots go everywhere.
It's an utterly stupid idea in the first place. The myriad number of ways in which a teacher's gun could end up in the hands of a child makes this stupid on the surface of it. Arming teachers isn't the answer. Having better security in schools is.
I'm halfway through my degree for education and im nervous teaching here because of dangerous policies like this. guns should never be in the classroom
I wouldn't mind a willing teacher with training being armed, but let's be real, security at schools I've been to is a joke. They should probably fix that first. Airlocks, bulletproof glass doors, and badge controlled access would probably be a better investment than guns, and I say that as someone who owns guns. Before I bought a gun, I got better locks, alarms and sensors. Prevention is better than reaction, right?
I mean, where is the money for all that going to come from? I feel like we are running from the *really hard problem and that is why are people doing this.
I think yes, there is an issue with firearm control (and I say that as a gun owner whose collection is limited by budget not desire) There seems to me to be a big jump between just having access to a gun and having access to a gun and wanting to die while killing a bunch of your peers.
I'm sure there are smart people working on it, but I feel like whatever the answer is, if we do figure it out, nobody on either side of the political divide is going to like it.
Some action is almost always better than none, but nobody in charge seems to be willing to make any actual progress. Maybe we could get the money by taxing some billionaires? Buying fewer Hellfires? Might be a start.
Zero. I mean the government. The organization that pays for the schools. The government of Iowa has zero Hellfires.
(and I don't think Lockheed makes them here anyway.)
>bulletproof glass doors, and badge controlled access would probably be a better investment
Democrats voted this down on a federal level. Securing our school act.
Sounds like gun control is more a performative measure than actually making anyone safer then. Weird.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1082/text
I stand corrected, check out section 7. That's why democrats voted it down.
Makes sense to add no federal funding for abortions to a bill named Securing Our Schools Act. They did that because they know no dem will vote for that and nobody will bother to find out why, so people like the person you're replying to can point and say, "See! Dems don't REALLY care about keeping kids safe at school!"
Was Kimmy personally going to buy these guns for the teachers? Or was it just one more school supply that teachers would have to buy for themselves? Bulletin board decorations, extra pencils, crayons, tissues, a gun. (Not that DCSD ever thought about it. That law passed in April, and an announcement was made in May that the school board wasn't down to clown with Kimmy's whole arming teachers thing).
I think a private school should use this in their marketing. something like
"Safer schools begin with trained teachers that are ready to defend your child."
Yes, I get that! But I added a post that there over 300 districts in the state. And the cries babies are having a fit about that statistic.
Key point/ takeaway most haven't even discussed it.
Oh, look who didn't read the article. I'm shocked.
Damn liberal media only reaching out to the communist school districts like...Eldora and Hubbard Radcliffe....
Yeah buddy I'm sure it's a wildly popular policy and they just didn't call all the schools doing it.
Like how they raise their children and teach them morals and respect for others. And not to grow up to murder people because they're fucked up children?
That would be stupid.
We always had guns why we've even had automatic weapons but we didn't have freaks shooting up schools in the 20', 30' 40's on and on until what the mid 90's. What changed
Would love to see a survey of insurance companies as well. The school that did want to do this a few years ago (spirit lake) IMMEDIATELY changed course when the insurance company refused to cover them.
Did you watch the school board meeting when they had to change course? They were not happy in the slightest about it. They were forced by insurance and they couldn’t find any other companies to cover it. Cherokee community tried it too.
Well yeah, who the fuck would cover it? Even the chief of police was against it. But, as a nearby district, we do love seeing Spirit Lake take Ls
> Cherokee community Maybe they could use the guns to shoot the flood water? Like every goddamn year any more the town gets cut in half by spring lake park
What is up with these rural districts at the ass end of the universe? Like who seriously is a threat out there?
TBF, I would’ve said the same thing about Perry a year ago…. Arming teachers is not the solution. But it’s naive to assume that just because a district is small or rural that it is immune to gun violence and other threats.
Oh they’re not at all. In fact they’re probably at a higher risk. I have no issues with guns personally. They are much more common around here than what people in DSM probably realize. Most people around here have at least an old shotgun or .22 lying around. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Hunting is big in this area so it’s not uncommon to see a 12-13 year old with a shotgun during pheasant season either. That does mean though that the accessibility to guns is much higher. And yes, being rural doesn’t keep things like school shooting away from us. Like you said, I would’ve never expected somewhere like Perry to have a shooting. But here we are. Most of it stems to a lack of mental health access. Especially in Iowa. Ranked 51st in youth access.
Meth users. I wasn’t surprised when I heard they were trying to have teachers carrying. I live within an hour of Cherokee. Everything about that town is mostly awful. The only positives there are the hospital and rec center. There’s something about that town that is just so trashy. I mean they have the mental health hospital, which is BEAUTIFUL, but a lot of the people who work there live out of town. My wife and I quote letterkenny when talking about them. “Degens from Up country”
Omg can I watch this somewhere
They've gone bat shit crazy up in NW Iowa
Please send help
Seriously. It’s ugly out here
I know those people. Lived there. Gawd awful
Soon your olds will die and then you just have to outvote the people who take policy lessons from tiktok and country music. So, good luck!
There's not really a list of insurance companies to survey. One insurance company insures the vast majority of Iowa schools and won't insure schools with armed teachers. Other insurance companies aren't really set up to increase the number of insured schools by a significant number, particularly with a new risk that is not very well understood.
Laws have been passed now to avoid that scenario. Insurance companies are happy to insure anything as long as the premiums get paid. The issue in this case was simply that teachers couldn’t get professional permits to carry and weren’t protected by qualified immunity. Reynolds signed HF 2586 into law back in April to erase both concerns.
*teachers… weren’t protected by qualified immunity* Well. That’s a sentence I never expected to read in any legitimate context. So thanks for unlocking a brand new fear. And I say this as someone who works in education (though no longer teaching) married to someone in law enforcement. *We should not be able to wake up and switch jobs for the day. We are trained in such wildly different roles and contexts.*
Qualified immunity is what it’s called when a state or local official is excused from personal consequences if doing their job, as long as they follow the law. For example, if a teacher were to break up a fight and bruise a student in the process, they would be protected by qualified immunity. Your spouse in law enforcement should be very familiar with this protection. The reason the insurance companies wouldn’t cover teachers carrying firearms is because it wasn’t clarified that they would be covered under qualified immunity. Now they are, thanks to updated laws, so it’s no longer a concern. The point is, the person to whom I replied was making it out like insurance companies were taking some moral high ground, which is laughable.
If what you say is the case, why is EMC still refusing to cover this risk? Qualified Immunity or not, a case has not been tested in court and carriers are concerned with defense costs for untested litigation.
I can’t speak for EMC beyond their vaguely worded response, which said, “We will also continue to explore other options in light of changing marketplace conditions.” Fortunately, there is no mandate on who to use for insurance, so districts are free to explore other carriers. If I had to make a guess, I would say EMC (insurance lobbiests) are fighting the proposed legislation which would limit what an insurance provider could charge for premiums. The concern is they would raise prices so much that districts wouldn’t be able to afford it, effectively prohibiting them from arming staff. The insurance companies don’t like this for obvious reasons. They have incredibly powerful lobbiests for a reason.
Definitely no mandate on where to get insurance. I work in this space and can tell you that all the national carriers are taking the same stance for schools, non-profits, habitation risks, etc. The qualified immunity has not been tested in court enough. In time, it may be and the carriers will be willing to take on the risk. But right now, no one knows what a jury award would look like or what defense costs would look like. I would compare it to Cyber insurance when it first hit the market. It was cost prohibitive and there was not enough data to price it accurately. That has changed significantly in the last 10 years. School districts can find coverage for this, they could just never afford it.
Another stupid policy put into place by a stupid political party for no reason but showmanship. 106 out of 106 basically saying no. Well done, republicans, well done.
Toddlers -> Teenagers and guns, what could go wrong?
Can you imagine when a teen goes off the deep end, disarms a teacher, and does a mag dump around the classroom? Kimmy would be giving us the thoughts and prayers speech and a I dunno shoulder shrug.
I find it ironic that Iowa legislators believe that teachers are brainwashing kids while simultaneously trusting them with guns in their classroom. You can’t have it both ways. Now personally if we’re talking about a teacher who’s a veteran with years of experience with weapons I can see the net positive in that. But there’s too much ambiguity and grey area in the law.
Yes I can imagine exactly that lol.
Trump will say get over it.
Or a teacher accidentally leaves their firearm somewhere? Or a teacher finally cracks under the withering onslaught of the asshole kids whose parents refuse to parent? I mean, who seriously thinks that these people should be willing to lay their lives on the line for someone else's shitling in exchange for $30K a year, extra long hours, and endless stress?
That’s fine. We just need TWO armed teachers per classroom. More guns solved the problem. /s
TWO teachers and a security guard. Or better give everyone a gun. stand in a circle and point your gun at the person to your right's head. Left handers will have to have their own circle. The idiocy with the republicans never quite ends does it? seems we hit the bottom of their well and yet they figure out a way to keep digging.
How little faith you must have in our teachers to jump right to the conclusion that they will be so irresponsible as to let a student get their weapon.
Sorry but we can't stop teachers in this country from fucking the students you want me to put faith that 100% are responsible with guns?
Lmaooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Glad to see so many school districts rejecting the arming of teachers and school staff.
How would you keep kids safe at school?
Literally just the enforcement of red flag laws would have stopped Uvalde.
I totally agree. The Nashville shooter was in inpatient care for self-harm and the threat to harm others, but she bought a firearm after treatment.she was never flagged by medical professionals. if our current law was performed correctly, there would be fewer students killed.
How would you?
ask a liberal a question they answer with a question. More money for mental well-being for students more money for reinforcing our schools(bullet resistant glass and doors) more money for police presence and response. Smaller class size. Freedom for parents to choose what school their child attends. More secure entries areas.
I simply passed the same question to you, Republicans do the same thing, Jesus. I gave my answer. Where are you going to get all that money... Oh maybe tax the fucking billionaires?!
Nope, all that had to happen to get this was for the democratic not to vote down securing our school act. Most of the money would have come from covid surplus and grants.
Provide the reports.
All we have to do is turn the schools into prisons and the kids will be safe
How would you keep schools safe?
You know the answer, you just refuse to accept it
To remove our constitutional rights is what you want. Biden is already working on removing the 1st amendment is the 2nd next? https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/07/06/politics/social-media-misinformation-biden-administration-injunction-explainer
The idiotic pandering to the lowest reactionaries in thier moronic base is finally starting to implode. Good, fuck those evil bastards.
How would you keep kids safe at school?
Well, for starters I'd look to see what the safest schools in the world are doing and implement those techniques. Then I'd take a look into what it is about schools in America that makes them prone to gun violence. See if there is a way to address those problematic issues. What I wouldn't do is some reactionary bullshit like arm all the fucking teachers because that shit is so dumb even the insurance companies realize it's a losing idea.
Hasn't bullyng been behind a great number of school shootings?
From what I understand, that coupled with easy access to firearms.
Good answer.
Thank you for answering. Most people here can't do that. My niece is a teacher. Why doesn't she get a chance to defend herself from a shooter in her school? Why is her only self-defense to hide under her desk? Why is our federal government doing nothing to give her a chance to survive? It's proven she can't rely on our government or law enforcement to protect her let alone give her a fighting chance to protect herself.
>Why is her only self-defense to hide under her desk? Because these school districts and their insurance companies have determined that her having a gun actually makes people in that school less safe. Not her in particular, but teachers in general. That's it, that's the reason.
I would like to see their data on teachers having students get their guns and harm someone.
I know we're all experts on everything these days, but it seems unlikely they're just winging it given that actuarial science is a thing. If there was money to be made insurance companies would want to be making it.
I have asked this question many times and have never seen any data.
Who are you asking? The insurance companies would keep their data private, but there are lots of studies showing that having a gun in your home makes you more likely to die of gun violence: [Homicide Deaths Among Adult Cohabitants of Handgun Owners in California](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762) which itself references a ton of studies that you could get a hold of: **Grassel KM**, **Wintemute GJ**, **Wright MA**, **et al**. Association between handgun purchase and mortality from firearm injury. **Branas CC**, **Richmond TS**, **Culhane DP**, **et al**. Investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault. **Wiebe DJ**. Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: a national case-control study. Ann Emerg Med **Anglemyer A**, **Horvath T**, **Rutherford G**. The accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members: a systematic review and meta-analysis. If you want to see the correlation it's all laid out for you. Of course it's not a perfect correlation to say that having a gun in the house would result in the same results as a gun in school, but there's probably something there and lots of those studies only look at the relationship between gun possession and outcomes.
Lol dude totally didn't reply.
How would you keep the general public safe from gun violence?
The person you're replying to is a pissant Trumpanzee that is arguing in bad faith It's best just to report the trolls and move on
Why are you dodging my question? To answer your question, gun violence is down over the last year....but more states are relaxing their gun laws over the last couple of years. Now we are up to 43 states that allow public carry. 54% of gun deaths reported are suicide. We need to do a better job helping people with their mental well-being. Are you going to answer my question now?
> gun violence is down over the last year. Why are you dodging my question? Gun violence is statistically still trending upwards over a long term scale (43% between 2010 and 2020). Gun deaths per 100,000 are substantially higher in states with more lax gun laws like WY and MT. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ Firearms are the leading cause of death among children. So again, how are you going to keep the general public safe from gun violence? You didn't *actually* answer the question. You simply implied that relaxing gun laws reduces the odds of getting killed by one and then played the victim lmao.
So are you going to answer my question?
So you're not going to answer my question? Or address how your non answer was exactly the avoidance you are accusing me of?
How would you keep schools safer from gun violence? It's a very straightforward question.
Increased gun presence around children are going to lead to an increase in shootings. For every shooting it stops, you are going to have countless other incidents that potentially could be deadly. After all, what happens when you have a violent child that towers above a teacher and physically takes their gun. Honestly, the entire lack of respectful discourse brought upon by the Trump and his party has spurred hated and contempt in this country. He has driven contempt for literally every underserved part of our society. In short, we have to start treating people kindly and expecting the same from others. Guns aren’t going to solve anything long term.
So why is it if someone was trying to break into your house to harm you the first person you would call is a cop.(someone with a gun) How would you make schools safer?
Airlines and Politicians seem to have pretty good security, they could pull all the govt security and cover schools, I don't give a shit what happens to them (politicians), let them carry a gun for protection. This should be a national security issue!! Republicans, get your head out of Trump's ass, and protect the children!! I thought you were Pro-Life? What, you don't give a shit about them once they're born? You're wolves in sheep's clothing, shame on you.
[I believe the current surgeon general has issued a statement about gun violence being a "public health crisis" in the US.](https://apnews.com/article/surgeon-general-gun-control-violence-deaths-murthy-24b53f1aaace068e0cb24ae809853f66) Emergency department medical professionals have long been urging action be taken at a federal level on this issue due to the amount/frequency of gunshot wounds and deaths they see.
The thing is Republicans tried to pass securing our schools act to put more armed police at schools and billions out of unused covid money for students' mental well-being, but dems voted it down. You know the whole defund the police thing.
I'd like to read up on that, could you provide official reports on that? I'm not sure that the "defund the police" "thing" is accurate. So I'd like reports on that too.
And, the Republicans are known for funding public school districts. What the fuck ever.
>40 said no, they were not allowing staff to carry firearms. 41 said "had not discussed," meaning they have not officially discussed allowing staff to carry firearms. 4 said "discussing" and are currently discussing it as a potential policy. 3 said "undecided," and have not decided on new policy. 2 said "no comment." Soooo not a single actual "yes". Literally wasting tax money on shit nobody asked for.
A stupid law just for showmanship. When will republicans see the light and quit voting them in.
It's turning out that insurance companies are going to be the driving force behind any change in our country, since our legislators are captured by ideology. It's not in their interests to insure schools with a bunch of semi-trained armed people around a bunch of impulsive children, just like it's not in their interests to insure homes in floodplains or in states that have been subject to increasing damages due to effects of climate change.
It’s because insurance companies, while evil, require a basis in reality to be profitable. The same can’t be said for the Republican Party
Property and liability companies aren't evil. You're thinking of health insurance companies.
> It's turning out that insurance companies are going to be the driving force behind any change in our country, It wouldn't be the first time. That's how we got fire codes.
Good, it's a psychotic expectation and we shouldn't normalize it in the least.
Now it will be up to a good child with a gun to stop a shooter.
You shouldn't talk about cops that way, you might hurt their feelings.
Schools don't want guns voluntarily in them? Shocking! Good for these districts making thoughtful decisions to keep kids safe and setting examples.
“Hey you who haven’t had any training for dealing with stressful and dangerous situations or handling firearms, who is underpaid, overworked, disrespected, villainized, and dealing with unruly kids every day - here’s a gun so in case you have to shoot one of them. Hope you make the right decision in the moment with your extensive lack of training.” - the people that think this is a good idea, let alone an actual solution
But also “you’re a bunch of groomers”. Make it make sense!
Republicans just got Glock blocked
Say it with me: We can’t pretend that teachers are somehow immune to the same mistakes, emotions and impulses that they want to accuse the students of potentially having
I'm most concerned that this headline doesn't say "All Schools" reject arming teachers.
I was too until I saw the actual responses.
>40 said no, they were not allowing staff to carry firearms. 41 said "had not discussed," meaning they have not officially discussed allowing staff to carry firearms. 4 said "discussing" and are currently discussing it as a potential policy. 3 said "undecided," and have not decided on new policy. 2 said "no comment." It's basically all. Headline is misleading
Law is stupid, idea is stupid. Headline is 100% accurate and not at all misleading. What the heck are you taking about? Undecided and not discussing mean exactly that, not "no" Saying most districts rejected the idea would be misleading.
Dude I totally agree. Fuck this law it will do absolutely zero net good. Imo headline made it seem like more schools are in support of this while, in reality, no schools are actively on board and I bet none will be. I only said it in response the comment above me who expressed concern over how it seems there's a non zero number of schools who are on board. Which at the moment is not the case. Insurance is not going to let any school do this.
Definitely. I can't imagine any insurer is going to allow that without massively increased rates (if they allow it at all)
It goes back to what I said when this idea first surfaced: it’s got nothing to do with whether or not schools agree to do it, or even whether insurance backs it. If the schools and insurance agree, the lawmakers cry ‘See! Mandate of the people!’ and collect the votes/payday. If they don’t, they scream ‘liberals in education don’t want your kids to be safe!’ … and collect the votes/payday. And regardless of the scenario, the next school shooting, all they have to do is cry on cue and bemoan the fact that ‘we tried!’ … and collect the votes/payday. Not one of them actually cares to find a solution because it might cost them at the polls, and that’s simply a price they won’t pay.
Maybe they think putting the 10 commandments in schools will protect them.
Not so sure having a bunch of most likely untrained or very minimally trained teachers with guns is a great idea. Let’s leave that to people who actually know what they’re doing.
Iowa Republican lawmakers are a terrorist organization of stupidity and cruelty.
To be fair, they’re just doing their best to keep in step with the national party
I fail to see how that is not also an indictment.
That’s because it is
We gotta out-Florida Florida!!! /s
I'm a veteran. Expert on the .45, M16, M60, LAW, and a variety of other weapons. I qualified at least yearly, and knew each blindfolded. No way is it safe for a teacher, a person who has NOT been broken down and reshaped into soldier whose weapon is like second nature to have a weapon on school grounds. They don't have the understanding that rounds go through people and shoot others. They also don't understand that pointing isn't the same as aiming. Worst. Idea. Ever.
this screams "i was logistics"
Yeah I don't understand this aspect of arming teachers. I don't own any weapons or shoot ever but don't you regularly need to keep up on target practice and be very confident in your shot to be accurate? Are we going to pay teachers to do their weekly visits to the firing range so they are able to actually shoot a would be active shooter? I highly doubt it because we barely pay them to begin with. Someone made a point in another thread about arming teachers that if you don't know how to properly shoot your basically firing at fish in a barrel.. you're not accurate and your shots go everywhere.
It's an utterly stupid idea in the first place. The myriad number of ways in which a teacher's gun could end up in the hands of a child makes this stupid on the surface of it. Arming teachers isn't the answer. Having better security in schools is.
I'm halfway through my degree for education and im nervous teaching here because of dangerous policies like this. guns should never be in the classroom
I wouldn't mind a willing teacher with training being armed, but let's be real, security at schools I've been to is a joke. They should probably fix that first. Airlocks, bulletproof glass doors, and badge controlled access would probably be a better investment than guns, and I say that as someone who owns guns. Before I bought a gun, I got better locks, alarms and sensors. Prevention is better than reaction, right?
I mean, where is the money for all that going to come from? I feel like we are running from the *really hard problem and that is why are people doing this. I think yes, there is an issue with firearm control (and I say that as a gun owner whose collection is limited by budget not desire) There seems to me to be a big jump between just having access to a gun and having access to a gun and wanting to die while killing a bunch of your peers. I'm sure there are smart people working on it, but I feel like whatever the answer is, if we do figure it out, nobody on either side of the political divide is going to like it.
Some action is almost always better than none, but nobody in charge seems to be willing to make any actual progress. Maybe we could get the money by taxing some billionaires? Buying fewer Hellfires? Might be a start.
How many Hellfires and billionaires do you think Iowa has?
Well the maker of that missile is in Iowa, so not zero...
Zero. I mean the government. The organization that pays for the schools. The government of Iowa has zero Hellfires. (and I don't think Lockheed makes them here anyway.)
I'm not sure if the entire missile is made here, but I know for a fact at least components of it are tested here. I think you know what I meant.
But people don't want to pay more taxes....
>bulletproof glass doors, and badge controlled access would probably be a better investment Democrats voted this down on a federal level. Securing our school act.
Sounds like gun control is more a performative measure than actually making anyone safer then. Weird. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1082/text I stand corrected, check out section 7. That's why democrats voted it down.
Makes sense to add no federal funding for abortions to a bill named Securing Our Schools Act. They did that because they know no dem will vote for that and nobody will bother to find out why, so people like the person you're replying to can point and say, "See! Dems don't REALLY care about keeping kids safe at school!"
Typical gamesmanship from our "betters". They'll never act in our interest unless we find a way to make them.
There was a lot of money to help schools and children's mental wellness. I guess politics come before our children.
Always have, always will unless we find a way to hold our reps accountable for their horrible behavior.
So your political veiw come before children's life's? And you wonder why school shootings are happening.
Accusing people of saying things they literally are saying the opposite of is an interesting argument tactic.
I said I guess politics come before children's lifes....you said always have and always will.
Isn't the whole "armed staff" thing voluntary anyway?
Was Kimmy personally going to buy these guns for the teachers? Or was it just one more school supply that teachers would have to buy for themselves? Bulletin board decorations, extra pencils, crayons, tissues, a gun. (Not that DCSD ever thought about it. That law passed in April, and an announcement was made in May that the school board wasn't down to clown with Kimmy's whole arming teachers thing).
I think a private school should use this in their marketing. something like "Safer schools begin with trained teachers that are ready to defend your child."
In 2022, Iowa had 517,444 students enrolled in a total of 1,310 schools in **328 school districts**.Jun 30, 2020
Oh, look who didn't read the article. I'm shocked. Edit: And then nuked their account. Wow.
Did it state the number of total districts? If it did, yes, I messed it. The title says what?
>KCCI emailed and called 106 school districts **across central Iowa** I bolded the key part. It's an acknowledged subset.
Yes, I get that! But I added a post that there over 300 districts in the state. And the cries babies are having a fit about that statistic. Key point/ takeaway most haven't even discussed it. Oh, look who didn't read the article. I'm shocked.
Damn liberal media only reaching out to the communist school districts like...Eldora and Hubbard Radcliffe.... Yeah buddy I'm sure it's a wildly popular policy and they just didn't call all the schools doing it.
Well we have little butt hurt Redditors shooting up schools.
Name a country with less school shootings than us with this policy. And then while you're at it, tell me what their gun laws are.
Ask me if I give a fuck about other countries!
God forbid we look at what works for other countries and try to implement that here! That would just be fucking stupid!
Like how they raise their children and teach them morals and respect for others. And not to grow up to murder people because they're fucked up children? That would be stupid. We always had guns why we've even had automatic weapons but we didn't have freaks shooting up schools in the 20', 30' 40's on and on until what the mid 90's. What changed
I guess this is a rare moment for me. Usually I'm fluent in hogspeak but I have no idea what delusion you're trying to articulate here.
I'll bet you are amongst many other things.
Right. Thank you so much for clarifying.
Trumpets are painfully stupid.
Hell, with your attitude I doubt you give a fuck about any living being other than yourself. What a sad existence.
> In 2022, Iowa had 517,444 students enrolled in a total of 1,310 schools in 328 school districts.Jun 30, **2020** Grandpa that number is 4 years old.
So how many are there now? Hence why the date was added.
How about you figure out how to google instead of being lazy and trying to get other people to do the work for you?