The Times They Are A-Changin'

[Solus]

Don't know if Robert Zimmerman would agree it is for the better though.

CCW in places of worship? No more "our insurance guy says no" excuse

As a concealed carry and personal protection instructor, I have been asked to consult with several places of worship on their safety plans. One such church - which boasts thousands of attendees on a large, multi-building facility several times per week - sought me out after they had been told by their insurance company that their rates would go up if they did NOT have a safety plan in place that involved some type of armed security. Yes, you read that right. Their insurance company, a large outfit that deals almost exclusively with places of worship, had realized that having at least a few good guys with guns in the church was less of a liability risk that was having no plan at all.

While I don't have permission to identify either the church or insurance company involved in the case I just mentioned, there is another insurance company which as chosen to publicize their rationale on church security on their website - and the company's name alone indicates that times are indeed a changin'.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/ccw-places-worship-no-more-our-insurance-guy-says-no-excuse


Side Note:  I thought of the Subject for this thread before I read it in the article 

[Hazcat]

Don't know if Robert Zimmerman would agree it is for the better though.

CCW in places of worship? No more "our insurance guy says no" excuse

As a concealed carry and personal protection instructor, I have been asked to consult with several places of worship on their safety plans. One such church - which boasts thousands of attendees on a large, multi-building facility several times per week - sought me out after they had been told by their insurance company that their rates would go up if they did NOT have a safety plan in place that involved some type of armed security. Yes, you read that right. Their insurance company, a large outfit that deals almost exclusively with places of worship, had realized that having at least a few good guys with guns in the church was less of a liability risk that was having no plan at all.

While I don't have permission to identify either the church or insurance company involved in the case I just mentioned, there is another insurance company which as chosen to publicize their rationale on church security on their website - and the company's name alone indicates that times are indeed a changin'.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/ccw-places-worship-no-more-our-insurance-guy-says-no-excuse


Side Note:  I thought of the Subject for this thread before I read it in the article 

So are you saying you have the brains of a Buckeye?   

[tombogan03884]

GOOD !

[Solus]

So are you saying you have the brains of a Buckeye?   

Well, I am a Buckeye  .  Live in Ohio.....

My question is:  Did folks know who Robert Zimmerman is before looking it up?

[Hazcat]

I have disliked Dylan since the first time I heard his whining, garbled voice.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

Lady I used to know told stories of going to parties in Greenwich village in the 60's and it was common to find Dylan passed out with a bottle of wine.

[PegLeg45]

Georgia's "opt-in" CCW for churches just went into effect July 1st......
I'm passing this on to the pastor (also a pro-gun enthusiast).

[kmitch200]

Lady I used to know told stories of going to parties in Greenwich village in the 60's and it was common to find Dylan passed out with a bottle of wine.

Hey!! Don't judge me!!

oh...never mind.

[vincewarde]

This is just the beginning.  If insurance companies in this field - who are more risk adverse than most (I know, I'm a retired minister) - are now looking at the increased risk of banning guns, what do you think will happen after the first business looses a lawsuit after their "no guns allowed signs" attract a mass shooter?

In fact, I would be shocked if attornies suing the Colorado theater victims are not planning to use that very argument at trial.  If they do, and they win, you can look for insurance companies to start refusing to insure business that are "posted".  This will result in huge numbers of these signs coming down.

If this happens, and I think at some point it will, look for the antis to demand that business posting signs be exempted from the liability of creating "phony gun free zones".   Our counter should be that since "phony gun free zones" are dangerous - they should be banned, or at least warning signs should be required indicating that "Places where guns are banned incur an increased chance of being killed."  We should stress that "gun free zones" are are not gun free, and that if a business wants to be "gun free" they need to crease a real gun free zone - as in airport like security.  We need to stress the absolute absurdity of thinking that anyone with evil intent is going to be stopped by a sign.  I think that if they try to get liability protection, we will win - and if they don't, we will win.

[tombogan03884]

Victim families are suing the theater chain in Aurora Colo for endangering them.
They are going with the lack of security guards at that theater while other theaters of that chain did have them.
The "No Guns" sign is something else they could use.