well, they got it bass ackwards, the risk is higher when the teachers don’t have guns
Currently, if a school massacre occurs and there was no armed school staff to stop it, the insurance company is not liable.
But if a school employee, permitted to be armed on school property, shoots somebody (or while trying to nail an attacker shoots a bystander), then that IS something the school can be sued for.
If the state rules that the insurance company MUST cover such risks, then rates will either go up by a huge amount, or the insurance companies will exit the business of insuring schools.
It is not the actual risk that counts. It is what argument will be used by some scumbag lawyer for whomever gets shot while trying to commit a crime on school property.
With a “law enforcement officer” the shooter, a lawyer would have a harder time convincing a jury that his client was shot by a “crazed racist Tea Party survivalist right wing whacko”, and thus deserving of a multimillion dollar settlement. Of which said lawyer gets his 25-35%.
risk is higher when the teachers don’t have guns
The one common denominator in almost all mass shootings is that they happen in “gun free zones”. Oddly, these signs never stop crazy or evil people. Go figure.