make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

New Hanover schools to undergo safety review

READ MORE:
nhcs.jpg

WILMINGTON, NC (AP) -- The New Hanover County Board of Education will spend up to $200,000 for a security and safety review of all 47 buildings in the district.

That review comes after last month's deadly attack at an elementary school in Connecticut. It will include looking at issues including the handling of crisis communications, school vulnerability and staff training. It will also look at safety risks in the buildings.

The board on Tuesday also agreed that sheriff's deputies can be posted at all elementary schools in the district through the end of the school year. The county commissioners earlier this week approved money for the officers. County officials estimate it will cost about $600,000.

(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.

»

We

LIVE IN A FREE SOCIETY...public areas like SCHOOLS will NEVER be safe from those who want to do us harm. THIS IS A KNEE JERK WASTE OF TAXPAYERS MONEY!

Every school board

carries property and liability insurance. One of the services provided is called loss control.

There is no cost for it.

Did they consider requesting the insurance carrier provide said inspection? After all the insurance company has a vested interest. They would be paying for any injuries or deaths which are founf to be due to school negligence or oversight?

Just another way they spend taxpayer dollars rather than avail themselves of something already paid for.

Tom

NCGS prevents weapons from being in schools the insurance company's do not pay out for injuries as a result of weapons use as far as I know. Even if a school door is left unlocked - the fact that the perp broke the law by bringing a weapon on school grounds relieves the insurance company of responsibility.
This is why I favor treating gun ownership like auto ownership. Require the gun owner to have the insurance, get the training, register the gun (annually) and pass a proficiency test, and have a very detailed background check done.
Hell charge them for all of this with fees etc.........
Why? Well think about someone who is mentally ill. A doctor prescribes an RX that impairs judgement. The Rx says don't drive an auto or operate equipment while taking ........
Why is this different? The car is dangerous while being operated by someone under the influence - as is a gun.
Let the insurance company's write the policies. Previous infractions? Drives the rate up. Get a gun DWI? Drives the rates up. Previous criminal activity while using a gun? Drives the rate up.
Let the free market weed out those that shouldn't be allowed to carry - or those that store their guns improperly.
That way the "right" is protected for anyone who takes that right seriously. Freedom comes at a cost. Want the right to bear arms? It comes with responsibility.
DISCLAIMER - I own and conceal carry. I would pass a drug screen and don't drink. I am trained and proficient. In other words - this wouldn't affect me.
Vog

LOL

REALLY!? ANY object is dangerous in the hands of a nut job. How about lets NOT use taxation to punish law abiding citizens! That would be great!

guest

Insurance is not a tax it's a GOP love-fest known as a "fee".
Politics aside.
Normal law abiding gun owners have nothing to fear. As I said rates are set by the insurers based upon previous activity and the gun owners level of responsibility.
doctors are involved to make a medical determination as to the ability of the owner to think, and aim clearly. Rx's would carry warnings on them as well.
Violate the warning and shoot somebody your rates go up because you didn't listen or heed the warnings AND the insurance company now has "claim" to settle.

The free market can regulate the market for buying, selling and the use of guns - and government can make a tone of money off of it.
No on is saying gun "ban" or "control" here either.
Your car is insured against theft right? Why not your gun?
You learn how to drive car safely and are tested on it why not a gun?
Your car is registered and re-registered why not your gun?
A Doc can take away your driving privileges due to a medical condition - why not a gun?
You can kill people with your car - AS WELL AS YOUR GUN.
So treat them the same.
Repeat offenders get priced out of the market
Drug addicts and mental patients have to prove they're better to get their license back - why not their gun license too?

Don't like a conservative argument for this do you? Don't like it to be personal responsibility for this do you? Don't like free markets playing a role in this do you?
I've made no argument to change the 2nd amendment!
The founding fathers did not see the development of the automobile nor the semi and automatic weapons of our time.
My argument does not impinge upon the 2nd amendment at all.
It just encourages personal responsibility.

Vog

VOG

my only point was the expenditure of over $100K when the Insurance Carrier can perform the same service for zero.

That was my point.

Hate to tell, but from a professional perspective, and many years experience, don't count on an insurance company not making payments.

Have you not seen the lawsuits being reported in other states?

Get attorneys involved and at the very least the insuranec company will be on the hook for thousands in defense costs.

How do you enforce your plan for registration, training, and insurANCE?

C'mon tom

Its like how do you make a baby girl?
The mold is right in front of you.
Autos and insurance.
Driver's Ed - Gun Ed
Take a test get your license
Buy a Car(gun)and attempt to register with proof of insurance
Once registered renewals every year
License renewals annually or every two years
Eye tests required
Doctors to restrict use upon prescribing of psychotic drugs

Loss of license is mis used
Hell we could have the DMV do this
The problem here is that the NRA does NOT want restriction of any kind on any weapons then guys like Goolsby write OpEd pieeces comparing guns to cars.
They the tout the mental health issues as the REAL cause of gun violence. By using my analogy a doctor could eliminate 30M gun owners from using because that's how many people are supposedly using some sort of mind altering or reflex altering drugs to fight mental illness. The NRA is partially right - but again there's consequences that should be made for this argument they propose.
If mental illness is a problem restrict gun ownership for those that suffer from it or are being altered by the meds to treat it. Do I want a mentally ill person to make a snap judgement as whether the guy at the door is a robber, a murderer, the post man or his brother? Heck no - nor do I want him behind the wheel.
But if mental illness is their argument then I make the case that about 30M people now lose the right - guaranteed by the constitution to bear arms.
So I say let the market do it for them - make it pricey to own and carry. Make it mandatory to have government (DMV) involvement. Have a Doc decide if temporarily you are incapacitated to carry and let the government make money off of it and have insurance in case mistakes are made (making it even more pricey).
Let the free market decide

Vog

VOG

you're using rose colored specs if you think attorneys will not flock to represent traumatized students and their parents.

That said, let the insurance company do the safety work; it's a part of the service insurance companies provide.