Jump to content

Naperville District 203 Unanimously Votes Against Armed Teachers


Scipio24

Recommended Posts

From https://patch.com/illinois/naperville/naperville-district-203-unanimously-votes-against-armed-teachers

 

 

 

NAPERVILLE, IL — Naperville District 203 board members, staff, students, and parents are sending a clear message to the Illinois Association of School Boards (IASB) about arming teachers after the district voted unanimously Monday to stand against a resolution that supports teachers and staff carrying guns. During Monday's meeting, board members were backed up by students and parents who shared their sentiments about any initiatives to arm educators.

The proposed Student Safety and Protection Plan is sponsored by Red Hill Community School District 10 and co-sponsored by 10 additional school districts, including Mount Vernon City Schools and Wilmington CUSD 209U.

The proposal includes requirements that teachers and staff who would be armed pass "multiple background checks" and have a valid concealed carry license.

Keith Clingman was one resident who spoke out at the meeting Monday. Clingman said, who has four children in elementary, middle school, and high school in Naperville, said he was "highly alarmed" at the thought of armed guards in schools. "You can't fix gun violence with more guns," he said.

Clingman was followed by Mark Bailey, who spoken on behalf of the Naperville Unit Education Association (NUEA). Bailey, who has taught for more than 40 years, said the NUEA is "categorically opposed to arming and asking teachers and staff to carry firearms in our school and in our classrooms."

Two students used the time for public comment to express their opposition to armed guards and teachers in schools. 8th-grader Nathan May said he was inspired by the survivors of the Feb. 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas school in Parkland, Florida, to speak out in support of "common sense gun violence." May said the idea of guns in his school make him feel "anxious and nervous."

Peyton Arens, who is the student council president at Washington Junior High School said he helped organized walkout against gun violence last year and traveled to Washington D.C. to take part in the March for Our Lives. Arens said, "Our teachers became teachers because they have a passion for children and education, not because they want to carry a firearm."

District 203 will send delegate Terry Fielden with their "no" vote to the IASB Delegate Assembly on Nov. 17 to a resolution that would to give Illinois school boards an option to "be an active and armed part of the Student Safety and Protection Plan."

 

There is a link to watch the meeting in full, but I did not bother. I wonder if there was not a single proponent for arming teachers that spoke up...or maybe there was and they didn't list them in the article.

 

What is failed to be understood is that there is nothing that could stop someone from walking into a school with a concealed weapon on them right now. As far as I know the GFZ signs' force-fields are still not operational. Yes, it would be illegal but we all know how criminals and respect for the law work.

 

Many say that they are "alarmed" that people want firearms to be in the hands of teachers and administrators. Students say they would feel "anxious and nervous". I think it would be safe to say that the vast majority of people wish that it wasn't the case where you had to worry about gun violence while at school. I know that is true for me. However, the unfortunate reality is it is now a concern and "wishing it away" is not going to work. I think people misconstrue that if this would pass, they would be handing out Glocks with teaching licenses/certificates lol. This would be something that individuals who want to carry while at school can do to protect themselves and their students. Is an individual not afforded the right of self-dense while at school?

 

Just amazes me how people would rather bury their head in the sand than provide realistic solutions or even entertain some solutions. Wishing it away is not enough. Alternatives? Single entry points and metal detectors? Yea, I can get behind that...but funding for that? Raise property tax some more? I mean, I don't have the answers. Wish I did. I think it is society that has fundamentally changed in the past few decades and that's why we've seen an increase in these occurrences. Cyber-bulling, bad parenting, kids not instilled with the morals of right or wrong and no respect for human life. Until that is fixed, we're just throwing on band-aids.

 

A gentlemen in the story above is quoted saying "You can't fix gun violence with more guns". I would politely argue that thus far, GFZs have not done a great job at keeping schools (and all locations) safe from people with nefarious intent. Maybe he wants to bet his kids' lives on that, but I know I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Molly B., December 12, 2018 at 05:54 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., December 12, 2018 at 05:54 AM - No reason given

Of course they did. Bloomberg’s little darlings were there and welcomed with open arms!

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/naperville-sun/news/ct-nvs-parkland-naperville-st-0606-story,amp.html

 

 

That said, I have some goodies coming up for you all soon hopefully on another (large) school district. I haven’t quit attacking and those that follow me one twitter know what’s up.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., December 12, 2018 at 05:54 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., December 12, 2018 at 05:54 AM - No reason given

Why have an immediate response?

Give the shooter some time to kill kids, then they'll have a tragedy to be in an uproar about.

That way the can push more gun control.

Message should be really clear, they don't give a damn about kids being killed.

I could go on and on about how right you are.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., December 12, 2018 at 05:54 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., December 12, 2018 at 05:54 AM - No reason given

I talk with people privately that work for Andrew Pollacks Americans For Class.

 

https://americansforclass.org/

 

This is what one of them sent me last night. I linked him the Naperville story minutes ago

 

http://i.imgur.com/HF6t6YB.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/WhQdp5t.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/6GTtnRJ.jpg

 

Ive had it. Im going to get involved in my sons district.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., October 17, 2018 at 02:32 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., October 17, 2018 at 02:32 PM - No reason given

Those gun free zone signs don't work. Don't ask me how I know...

 

I ignore them except for police stations, schools, and the post office. That's why it's called concealed.

There's a straight line can be draw from banning alcohol to Hoffa being fed to the pigs, banning anything just doesn't work.... Cheers.

Link to comment

The sad thing here is the resolution they are talking about says local school boards should have the option to choose for themselves if they want to add armed staff to their Student Safety and Protection Plan. Naperville's willingness to vote no is taking the choice away from OTHER schools.

Pray there is not but if there is people will be asking whey they didn't and let's hope they just didn't just create a big target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad thing here is the resolution they are talking about says local school boards should have the option to choose for themselves if they want to add armed staff to their Student Safety and Protection Plan. Naperville's willingness to vote no is taking the choice away from OTHER schools.

Are you going to the IASB meeting next month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fools. I can see this as giving notice to the next nutcase that Naperville schools are easy pickings.

+1

With the poor decision they've made, they're adding icing on the cake with an announcement over it. No different than when Obummer used to go on TV and explain what his plans were against an enemy prior to it happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it is in the wording.

 

For me....

 

Armed teachers? - No

Armed guards? - Would prefer not....really depends on a lot of factors and "ifs" .

Armed SRO's? Yes, this is a must.

 

Define armed guard:

Retired LEO? Yes

Retired military? Maybe

Random dude off the street that just wants any job that allows him to carry a gun? No

 

Edit:

I should add a caveat. I'm in 308, which is a huge district with huge schools.

 

Armed teachers "might" make more sense in much smaller schools in more rural areas that might not have the same resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it is in the wording.

 

For me....

 

Armed teachers? - No

Armed guards? - Would prefer not....really depends on a lot of factors and "ifs" .

Armed SRO's? Yes, this is a must.

 

Define armed guard:

Retired LEO? Yes

Retired military? Maybe

Random dude off the street that just wants any job that allows him to carry a gun? No

 

Edit:

I should add a caveat. I'm in 308, which is a huge district with huge schools.

 

Armed teachers "might" make more sense in much smaller schools in more rural areas that might not have the same resources.

So say you're a teacher in one of those large schools.

 

You have a carry permit.

 

You're OK that you're not allowed to carry? If one of your students manages to get a gun into your classroom, you're OK waiting for one of the SROs to respond to the threat?

 

Even if he's just down the hall, how many people can get shot in the 10 seconds it takes him to get there vs the time it would take you to draw and fire?

 

ETA: Parkland had an armed SRO.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I guess it is in the wording.

 

For me....

 

Armed teachers? - No

Armed guards? - Would prefer not....really depends on a lot of factors and "ifs" .

Armed SRO's? Yes, this is a must.

 

Define armed guard:

Retired LEO? Yes

Retired military? Maybe

Random dude off the street that just wants any job that allows him to carry a gun? No

 

Edit:

I should add a caveat. I'm in 308, which is a huge district with huge schools.

 

Armed teachers "might" make more sense in much smaller schools in more rural areas that might not have the same resources.

So say you're a teacher in one of those large schools.

 

You have a carry permit.

 

You're OK that you're not allowed to carry? If one of your students manages to get a gun into your classroom, you're OK waiting for one of the SROs to respond to the threat?

 

Even if he's just down the hall, how many people can get shot in the 10 seconds it takes him to get there vs the time it would take you to draw and fire?

 

ETA: Parkland had an armed SRO.....

 

 

I'm not allowed to "carry" in my job right now. Technically any employee could come into the office with a gun and start shooting.....that is how it is at pretty much any major business environment.

 

More importantly, I don't know about your CCL training, but mine didn't involve target identification during chaos while taking fire.

 

The kid doing the shooting does not care who gets hit. The teacher does. If a kid pulls out a gun in the back of a classroom, what is the teacher going to do?

What if there is more than one shooter?

Better yet, if shooter knows that teachers "might" carry....they would probably just shoot the teacher first.

 

Parkland is actually a good example. Handgun vs AR-15 is a bad match-up.

 

If the shooter is down the hall, and the teacher had a gun, the best thing to do might be to stay put and protect the classroom.....and hope the teacher does not accidentally shoot an innocent kid that comes busting into the room because he was looking for the first unlocked door he could find to escape the real shooter. Basically the same thing we would do in a home invasion....barricade yourself in a safe place and wait for the cops.

 

 

There is an ABC video floating around that had a pretend shooter bust into a classroom....with one of the students having a "pretend" gun on them (the guns shot small paint balls). The results were pretty bad because most of us (CCL holders) are not trained for the situation. I've never been in a gun fight. If someone busted into a room and started shooting, I would like to think I could keep my **** together, but who knows how I would actually react.

 

 

Let's go back to your question. You are a teacher with a concealed carry. A kid pulls out a gun in the back of the classroom and starts shooting. This isn't a movie....once you are done pissing your pants, what are you going to do? Your ears are ringing, your fine motor skills are toast, your legs are wobbly, your mind is racing.... I don't think the shooter is going to stand there and let you line up a shot from 7 yards out while you go through the motions of checking your stance and making your balance and grip are correct.

 

As someone mentioned in another thread....you fall back to the level of your training...which is? What for a CCL in Illinois?

 

 

Now if the question is...would I (personally) prefer to be armed or unarmed during a shooting...the answer is armed of course. But that is me personally (while still hoping I don't crap my pants), without the expectation of being some type of pseudo law enforcement. I don't expect Mrs Crabapple....the 9th grade Home Economics teacher to go all "operator pew-pew" in a shooting situation. Drop, roll and draw...double tap between the eyes.....blow the smoke from the barrel.....role the credits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The resolution in question would not 'arm teachers'. It would give school boards the option to use TRAINED staff members to carry a firearm as a part of the school's Student Safety and Protection Plan. TRAINED being the operative word and the other part is 'approved by the board' - as in the school board would approve who would and would not be involved.

 

This was brought to us by a couple of small school boards who have former law enforcement and former military members on their staff and would like to use them as a part of their security plan.

 

Check here for more details about the resolution: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=67927&hl=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I guess it is in the wording.

 

For me....

 

Armed teachers? - No

Armed guards? - Would prefer not....really depends on a lot of factors and "ifs" .

Armed SRO's? Yes, this is a must.

 

Define armed guard:

Retired LEO? Yes

Retired military? Maybe

Random dude off the street that just wants any job that allows him to carry a gun? No

 

Edit:

I should add a caveat. I'm in 308, which is a huge district with huge schools.

 

Armed teachers "might" make more sense in much smaller schools in more rural areas that might not have the same resources.

 

So say you're a teacher in one of those large schools.

You have a carry permit.

You're OK that you're not allowed to carry? If one of your students manages to get a gun into your classroom, you're OK waiting for one of the SROs to respond to the threat?

Even if he's just down the hall, how many people can get shot in the 10 seconds it takes him to get there vs the time it would take you to draw and fire?

ETA: Parkland had an armed SRO.....

 

 

 

 

I'm not allowed to "carry" in my job right now. Technically any employee could come into the office with a gun and start shooting.....that is how it is at pretty much any major business environment.

 

More importantly, I don't know about your CCL training, but mine didn't involve target identification during chaos while taking fire.

 

The kid doing the shooting does not care who gets hit. The teacher does. If a kid pulls out a gun in the back of a classroom, what is the teacher going to do?

What if there is more than one shooter?

Better yet, if shooter knows that teachers "might" carry....they would probably just shoot the teacher first.

 

Parkland is actually a good example. Handgun vs AR-15 is a bad match-up.

 

If the shooter is down the hall, and the teacher had a gun, the best thing to do might be to stay put and protect the classroom.....and hope the teacher does not accidentally shoot an innocent kid that comes busting into the room because he was looking for the first unlocked door he could find to escape the real shooter. Basically the same thing we would do in a home invasion....barricade yourself in a safe place and wait for the cops.

 

 

There is an ABC video floating around that had a pretend shooter bust into a classroom....with one of the students having a "pretend" gun on them (the guns shot small paint balls). The results were pretty bad because most of us (CCL holders) are not trained for the situation. I've never been in a gun fight. If someone busted into a room and started shooting, I would like to think I could keep my **** together, but who knows how I would actually react.

 

 

Let's go back to your question. You are a teacher with a concealed carry. A kid pulls out a gun in the back of the classroom and starts shooting. This isn't a movie....once you are done pissing your pants, what are you going to do? Your ears are ringing, your fine motor skills are toast, your legs are wobbly, your mind is racing.... I don't think the shooter is going to stand there and let you line up a shot from 7 yards out while you go through the motions of checking your stance and making your balance and grip are correct.

 

As someone mentioned in another thread....you fall back to the level of your training...which is? What for a CCL in Illinois?

 

 

Now if the question is...would I (personally) prefer to be armed or unarmed during a shooting...the answer is armed of course. But that is me personally (while still hoping I don't crap my pants), without the expectation of being some type of pseudo law enforcement. I don't expect Mrs Crabapple....the 9th grade Home Economics teacher to go all "operator pew-pew" in a shooting situation. Drop, roll and draw...double tap between the eyes.....blow the smoke from the barrel.....role the credits.

Maybe Mrs. Crabapple has the same thoughts about you. Maybe Mrs. Crabapple shoots IDPA and 3 gun on the weekends and takes every opportunity to get more training. Or maybe she just has a CCL that she did the minimum qualifications for.

 

Regardless, she would be armed. And a very high percentage of active shooters either kill themselves or give up the moment they are met with resistance.

 

The option of armed resistance trumps waiting for someone else to show up and save you 100% of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Texas has a School Marshal Training program. Its a state law. Each school district board can decide for itself whether to allow armed teachers. The training is pretty rigorous. Almost like LEO training. Obviously it is not shall issue, and the teachers are volunteers.

 

Also the teachers do not carry on their person. They carry to the classroom, and then use a lock box that is nearby. Which teachers are armed or not is known only to LE and the administration.

 

I dont think theres any government entity that would be dumb enough to allow teachers to carry with CCL Training only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...