IMO it's a matter of time before major insurance carriers will require public places

[no_hypocrisy]

(e.g., schools, restaurants, bars, places of worship, municipal buildings) to hire trained and certified armed guards. Otherwise they won't issue liability policies.

[rzemanfl]

1. After that they will sell coverage for errors and omissions by the armed guards. n/t

[EffieBlack]

2. I don't think that will happen

Since shootings usually don't impact insurance companies' liability. And if they did start requiring armed guards, they would also have to pay out to victims of shootings that occurred where there were armed guards who weren't negligent in their duties. It wouldn't be worth it - they'd be paying through the nose.

[wasupaloopa]

3. Wasn't the armed guard in the latest shooting killed?

I don't recall armed guards preventing any killings. In FL the guard ran.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Insurance carriers seem to want their policyholders to take measures to prevent risk.

The whole point of insurance companies is to avoid paying out to the injured and the dead.

My point is that the carriers will eventually sign off on requiring even the appearance of safety measures due to the mounting incidents of mass shooters in public places. It's a Risk/Benefit Ratio thing.

[WillowTree]

5. There was a guard, but he wasn't armed according to news reports.

[Blue_true]

7. A trained and experienced police officer was killed. Was one year from retirement.

Truly sad.

Lots of shooters case their targets before the assault. If armed guards are there, they will likely be the first dead.

Maybe we should try getting weapons of war out of the hands of anyone that want them.

[Blue_true]

6. Ok, then how do those armed people get insurance?

Maybe we should try limiting access to guns that can kill or maim 20 people in less than a minute. As an engineer, I always start with the problem first instead of looking for workarounds.