Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Panic strikes school after student says ‘gum’
October 14, 2015
KYLE, Texas – Emotions are on a hair trigger in schools these days.
So much so, just hearing the word “gum” can cause a school-wide freak-out, as evidenced by an episode Wednesday.
A student at Lehman High School student reportedly asked for some chewing gum, but another student thought the student said “gun,” KCEN reports.
http://haysfreepress.com/content/misund ... ehman-high
No gun was found and Hays County, Texas school district spokesman Tim Savoy insists the school was never in “lock down,” though school administrators did “hold students in their extended class periods to investigate the concern with little to no disruption to their schedule.”
Principal Michelle Chae sent a letter home to parents after the incident, according to the Hays Free Press, writing:Dear Lobo Parents,
This morning we received a report from a student that there was allegedly a weapon on campus. After investigating the concern, it was determined that a student thought he heard the word “gun,” but in fact it was another student asking for some “gum.”
The safety of our students is always foremost on our list of priorities, so we take these concerns seriously. We continue to encourage students to report anything they see or hear that causes them concern. Fortunately, in this case, it was a misunderstanding and there was no threat to our school or need to conduct a lockdown.
Because we are conducting the PSAT, we were able to hold students in their extended class periods to investigate the concern with little to no disruption to their schedule.
Sincerely,
Michelle Chae
Principal, LHS
No gun was ever found. No word on if the student ever got the requested gum.
http://eagnews.org/panic-strikes-school ... -says-gum/
Luther Blissett » Fri Oct 16, 2015 8:50 am wrote:I think they are definitely vastly different cases. I lean more towards Lash having some sort of "official" approval.
...
The industry is warning lawmakers against requiring gun owners to carry an insurance coverage that they may not be able to easily purchase.
...
One gun insurance bill has been filed in the House. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, D-N.Y., has filed the Firearms Risk Protection Act of 2013 (HR 1369), which would require gun owners to purchase liability coverage and to show proof of that coverage when they purchase a firearm.
Maloney says her bill would introduce a market-based solution to holding gun owners liable for the weapons they own.
“As with car insurance premiums, higher risk gun owners will face higher premiums. Actuarial determinations will be made by insurance companies, as those experts are in the best position to make those determinations based on sound data analysis,” she says.
Maloney says her bill does not establish a federal insurance program. Instead, it imposes no specific requirements on insurance companies, but instead imposes a fine of $10,000 if during the sale of a weapon the seller does not confirm coverage or the buyer has not purchased it.
Several states including California, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Illinois have considered but not passed gun insurance legislation similar to Maloney’s.
Wherever these proposals surface, insurers have been telling lawmakers that such approaches would not only violate basic insurance principles but also be unworkable.
“Though well intentioned, such proposals misunderstand a fundamental principle of insurance—that it is designed to cover fortuitous, or accidental events; not intentional conduct. Property/casualty insurance does not and cannot cover intentional behavior such as criminal acts,” said Willem O. Rijksen, vice president of public affairs for the American Insurance Association.
According to Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal and political affairs for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, gun liability insurance measures would neither deter violence nor help victims.
“Liability coverage is designed to protect against accidental damages, most of which involving guns would be covered under a homeowner’s insurance policy. While some policies may provide coverage for liability stemming from the intentional use of a firearm for defensive purposes, no liability insurance product covers intentional acts of malicious violence, whether committed with a gun, a car, or any other instrument that is used as a weapon to deliberately harm people,” said Grande. “It is inconceivable that any insurer would offer such coverage, either as part of a homeowners or renters policy or on a stand-alone basis.”
Wombaticus Rex » Wed Jun 22, 2016 10:58 pm wrote:Just a passing detail, though, no worries -- I'm sure today's sit-in at the House will change everything.
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Supreme-Court-decision-pleases-opposing-gun-views-8314323.php
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests