Naperville District 203 Unanimously Votes Against Armed Teachers

[Scipio24]

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.

 

 

 

The bolded point above. Even if no teachers/staff carried the thought that some did would serve as a deterrent. These school shooters don't want gun fights. They are coward low-lives.

[soylentgreen]

At least they brought it for a vote. That's more than anyone has done in my school district.

[ILgunguy]

Molly B's posts are on point. This resolution was to let lobbyists to tell Springfield to alter the law allowing individual school boards decide for themselves. Let's not put the cart before the horse. There is a long way to go and a ton of things to consider and work out for each school district before they would allow anyone other than an SRO to be armed.

 

It comes down to location, money, local politics, desire by the teachers, admins, etc.

 

What I don't like is the left saying "No teacher wants to be armed" as much as I don't agree with the fact that any teacher trained or not can take out a threat in the building. It is a case-by-case, district-by-district consideration.

 

All that being said, districts should at least be allowed to have that conversation. The resolution should be passed.

[Hap]

We should not allow the debate to be framed as a question of arming teachers. We should constantly bring it back to one of having a well-designed plan for defense against violent crime, in which properly-trained school staff play a role. We need to characterize decisions like D203's as being like barring participation of teachers in tornado or fire scenarios. I.e. unthinkably ridiculous.

[ILgunguy]

^^^^^ What this says.

[Tango7]

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.

This.

 

Stalin is reported to have said "A single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.". The left's version includes "Any amount in between is marketing material".

[Tango7]

You can't fix gun violence with more guns," he said.

 

Yeah, about that. We don't train to address active shooters with cookies and teddy bears:

 

http://i68.tinypic.com/250lcib.jpg

http://i65.tinypic.com/ejetfr.jpg

http://i67.tinypic.com/jzim8z.jpg

[Jeffrey]

You cannot fix gun violence but you can stop it much easier with another gun.

You can't fix gun violence with more guns," he said.

Yeah, about that. We don't train to address active shooters with cookies and teddy bears:

http://i68.tinypic.com/250lcib.jpg
http://i65.tinypic.com/ejetfr.jpg
http://i67.tinypic.com/jzim8z.jpg

[cybermgk]

 

 

 

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.

 

Actually, in my CCL class, we were in fact, trained on target selection, et al. Was it extensive? no. In fact that ABC 'experiment' was used as a training aid. Also used a virtual simulator to practice target selection, darawing firing, when to, and not to, etc. Again, there was only an hour of that for 4 students. But, I've since gone back and paid for an additional hour for me and my sons several times.

 

Frankly, I think your missing a crucial point here. Mass shooters pick schools because they are easy, soft targets AND contain a lot of targets GUARENTEED to get press, our children. Look at the level of 'out rage' over the Parkland shooting compared to the Vegas one. FAR more people were hurt and killed in Vegas.

[steveTA84]

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.

Actually, in my CCL class, we were in fact, trained on target selection, et al. Was it extensive? no. In fact that ABC 'experiment' was used as a training aid. Also used a virtual simulator to practice target selection, darawing firing, when to, and not to, etc. Again, there was only an hour of that for 4 students. But, I've since gone back and paid for an additional hour for me and my sons several times.

 

Frankly, I think your missing a crucial point here. Mass shooters pick schools because they are easy, soft targets AND contain a lot of targets GUARENTEED to get press, our children. Look at the level of 'out rage' over the Parkland shooting compared to the Vegas one. FAR more people were hurt and killed in Vegas.

 

Parkland turned into what it did for a few reasons

 

1. Heavily democratic area

2. People there have connections to the press and Hollywood

3. It’s being used to push the midterms.

 

Bloomberg has his hands in it since just a few days after, with the VERY FIRST rally put together just 1 day after the shooting

 

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

 

And just earlier this month, Bloomberg was in Parkland doing a midterm gun control push

 

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article219422605.html

 

 

Despite his keynote slot at a gun safety rally near Parkland, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg took a back seat on Friday night as three student leaders and the grieving parents of two teenagers killed during the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting delivered emotional speeches encouraging the voting public to cast their ballots for “gun sense” candidates willing to enact stronger gun control laws.

 

Parkland was different because of where it happened, when it happened, and the people involved (Sheriff Isreal, Robert Runcie, who is best pals with Arne Duncan btw).

 

Notice how Santa Fe is done with? People there aren’t crying for more gun control like in the heavily democratic controlled Broward County. In all honesty, if this happened on 1/21/17, it would already be old news. It’s nothing more than a push to get democrats elected at this point. The DNC loves dead kids, as it riles up their base

[2smartby1/2]

I think it is safe to say that it is venue...but this seems like a very one sided debate. It has that echo chamber feel.

 

On "this" side, there isn't even a consensus on what arming teachers means.

Armed teachers with guns in classrooms? Does that mean any teacher with a CCL can carry? Or is there specific and continuing training needed?

Guns within the school at secure locations for specific staff?

 

But besides that, the issue I see with armed teachers goes along these lines:

I have plenty of guns at home. I'm aware that as a gun owner, there is now a greater risk of accidental discharges or accidental shootings with guns in the home. I teach my kids gun safety. I'm responsible for my weapons. If something happens in my home, that is ON ME.

 

Putting a gun in a classroom changes that dynamic. While my kids know to not touch a gun, don't let someone hand them a gun, make sure a gun is never pointed at someone, and go tell an adult right away if the find a gun. Other kids may not know...or care. I don't have control over where a gun is kept at school (like I would at home). I don't want some delinquent LOOKING for a gun when a teacher isn't around. A vast majority of teachers are women, if they carry, will a gun be kept on them or in a purse inside of a drawer?

 

 

How do you quantify the risk of a gun in a classroom vs having being armed during a school shooting?

It is PURE RISK ASSESSMENT.

That is the argument, and I don't think there is really a right or wrong because both of these sets of statements are equally true.

 

1. Without a gun, there isn't even a threat of a deterrent (depending on what is meant by arming teachers).

2. If there is a shooter, a gun provides you at least some ability to protect yourself, protect others, and/or take down the shooter.

 

1. The chance of an accidental discharge or a kid finding/taking a gun is ZERO if there isn't a gun in the classroom to begin with.

2. If there is a shooter....you have increased the risk of friendly fire (both for the students and the armed teacher/staff).

 

 

Remember the example about the kid in the back of the room? That was never answered. Assuming the teacher (whom was most likely writing on a chalk/whiteboard or had their head down reading papers) isn't hit right away and isn't freaking out, are they going to take a shot at a shooter with a pistol in a room full of screaming students? That type of situation requires some serious advanced training. I dated a teacher through most of college and was married to a teacher. Most of their spare time was spent lesson planning or doing continuing ed.

[Jeffrey]

I think it is safe to say that it is venue...but this seems like a very one sided debate. It has that echo chamber feel.

 

On "this" side, there isn't even a consensus on what arming teachers means.

Armed teachers with guns in classrooms? Does that mean any teacher with a CCL can carry? Or is there specific and continuing training needed?

Guns within the school at secure locations for specific staff?

 

But besides that, the issue I see with armed teachers goes along these lines:

I have plenty of guns at home. I'm aware that as a gun owner, there is now a greater risk of accidental discharges or accidental shootings with guns in the home. I teach my kids gun safety. I'm responsible for my weapons. If something happens in my home, that is ON ME.

 

Putting a gun in a classroom changes that dynamic. While my kids know to not touch a gun, don't let someone hand them a gun, make sure a gun is never pointed at someone, and go tell an adult right away if the find a gun. Other kids may not know...or care. I don't have control over where a gun is kept at school (like I would at home). I don't want some delinquent LOOKING for a gun when a teacher isn't around. A vast majority of teachers are women, if they carry, will a gun be kept on them or in a purse inside of a drawer?

 

 

How do you quantify the risk of a gun in a classroom vs having being armed during a school shooting?

It is PURE RISK ASSESSMENT.

That is the argument, and I don't think there is really a right or wrong because both of these sets of statements are equally true.

 

1. Without a gun, there isn't even a threat of a deterrent (depending on what is meant by arming teachers).

2. If there is a shooter, a gun provides you at least some ability to protect yourself, protect others, and/or take down the shooter.

 

1. The chance of an accidental discharge or a kid finding/taking a gun is ZERO if there isn't a gun in the classroom to begin with.

2. If there is a shooter....you have increased the risk of friendly fire (both for the students and the armed teacher/staff).

 

 

Remember the example about the kid in the back of the room? That was never answered. Assuming the teacher (whom was most likely writing on a chalk/whiteboard or had their head down reading papers) isn't hit right away and isn't freaking out, are they going to take a shot at a shooter with a pistol in a room full of screaming students? That type of situation requires some serious advanced training. I dated a teacher through most of college and was married to a teacher. Most of their spare time was spent lesson planning or doing continuing ed.

How do you suggest we get to the level that there is a Zero chance of having a gun in a classroom? We won't need armed teachers if you have that solution.

[2smartby1/2]

 

How do you suggest we get to the level that there is a Zero chance of having a gun in a classroom? We won't need armed teachers if you have that solution.

 

That's the rub, isn't it? Outside of the extremes, there is no right or wrong answer. That is why I don't call the other side stupid. Both sides have valid points...where can the sides meet in the middle?

 

I'm all for armed RSO's. But beyond that, I get a bit skeptical because the risk factor amps up. A gun in a secure location to be used be specific (and extensively) trained staff is safer than a gun in a classroom, but that has its own drawbacks. Plus, how much training should be required?

[Euler]

How do you suggest we get to the level that there is a Zero chance of having a gun in a classroom? We won't need armed teachers if you have that solution.

For some other countries, a typical solution is:

• Put a wall around the school yard with only one entrance. The entrance has a gate which can be closed and locked.
• The gate is guarded by police or military personnel armed with automatic weapons.
• Only people are allowed through the gate. No motor vehicles allowed. Bicycles are acceptable. There are no exceptions for deliveries (e.g., for the cafeteria). Deliveries are pushed on handcarts.
• It should be needless to say, but there are no parking lots. Anyone who wants to drive themselves can park in a non-dedicated lot several blocks away.
• Usually there aren't metal detectors, but there could be.
• Classrooms are not designed as deathtraps. Windows can be opened for escape, if needed. Doors can be locked from the inside.
• Attack drills are conducted regularly and do not consist of teaching children to hide in closets.

[Jeffrey]

I don't like the idea of turning every school into Area 51 even though it would definitely lower the odds. Armed security minus the uniform is still the easiest solution and doesn't put up any red flags as to who those individuals are. Home schooling looks more appetizing every day. Maybe a remote class instead. With video conferencing technology, the class could be taught from anywhere and every student could be sitting at their kitchen table. That unfortunately removes the face to face interaction that kids need but also cuts the chances of a school shooting to close to zero.

[soylentgreen]

 

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.

 

 

I find this kind of response from a CCL holder to be inexplicable. NO ONE is asking Mrs. Crabapple to carry...unless she WANTS to and feels confident enough to do so. I also presume there would be special training to address the special circumstances of classroom violence. I'm also not under any illusion that CCL teachers will win 100% of the outbreaks of shooting. Some will be successful. Others will die trying. Right now, we are batting zero. We are losing EVERY SINGLE ENCOUNTER with armed assailants in schools.

 

No one is expecting armed teachers to be an impenetrable shield of protection for our children either. Also, armed teachers are only ONE part of a larger school security culture that needs to be implemented. Schools need to be hardened.

 

Is it possible that an armed teacher will accidentally shoot an innocent student while trying to stop an active shooter? Yes. Absolutely. The same thing could happen with a police officer. Should we disarm the police?

 

If a teacher took out a bad man with a gun in my kid's school and my child was accidentally shot by the teacher in the process, of course I would struggle with that. But there's no way to know whether my child would have been shot by the perpetrator anyway. If a teacher limited the deaths to 5 instead of 20 who would have died if the shooter was unopposed, isn't that worth going after? We can not rely on police to respond to these evil attacks. A prepared psycho can kill 30 people in the time it takes an officer to get in his cruiser and buckle his seatbelt.

 

Yeah, an AR-15 has a major advantage over a handgun. So? If the alternative is to face off with someone carrying an AR-15 with nothing in my hands, I'll take a Glock ten times out of ten.

[soylentgreen]

 

How do you suggest we get to the level that there is a Zero chance of having a gun in a classroom? We won't need armed teachers if you have that solution.

 

 

There is zero way to be 100% certain there will never be a gun in a classroom.

[ChicagoRonin70]

I will say, unequivocally, that anyone who suggests in any fashion that entirely removing the possibility for a teacher to have the option to more effectively protect their students by using a concealed firearm against a murderous school shooter is an idiot who fails to comprehend reality, and thus should never be given any credence or taken seriously.

 

This is not my opinion of such individuals, but rather it is both fact and an obligation by anyone with a minimum of critical thinking skills and social responsibility to consider them thusly.

[biggun 1]

I will say, unequivocally, that anyone who suggests in any fashion that entirely removing the possibility for a teacher to have the option to more effectively protect their students by using a concealed firearm against a murderous school shooter is an idiot who fails to comprehend reality, and thus should never be given any credence or taken seriously.

 

This is not my opinion of such individuals, but rather it is both fact and an obligation by anyone with a minimum of critical thinking skills and social responsibility to consider them thusly.

well said.rational thinking from a liberal is very uncommon,espically when a gun is involved.

[ChicagoRonin70]

 

I will say, unequivocally, that anyone who suggests in any fashion that entirely removing the possibility for a teacher to have the option to more effectively protect their students by using a concealed firearm against a murderous school shooter is an idiot who fails to comprehend reality, and thus should never be given any credence or taken seriously.

 

This is not my opinion of such individuals, but rather it is both fact and an obligation by anyone with a minimum of critical thinking skills and social responsibility to consider them thusly.

well said.rational thinking from a liberal is very uncommon,espically when a gun is involved.

 

 

Just to clarify, I'm not conservative or liberal. I'm a socially liberal Libertarian and pragmatic necessitarian. Which means that I strongly support people doing what makes them happy and content, safely and securely, with the government staying out of all but the absolute necessities to facilitate those things.

 

I think most things that Conservatives believe about social policies are idiotic, and I think most things that Liberals believe about collectivism and economics are stupid, and what both sides believe about interfering with what the Constitution says and means, based on their ideologically biased dogma, is criminal and possibly treasonous behavior.

 

Basically, Conservatives are wrong about most things, and Liberals are wrong about most things, both are right about some small bit, and both need to be displaced from primacy in politics, as they have proven to be unqualified to run a Constitutional Republic the way it was supposed to be administered.

 

The People are paramount, the government serves the people, the rights of the people are not to be interfered with by the government or by biased ideology, because they supersede the government's existence and are intended to make the government answerable to the people and prevent the tyranny of the majority from overrunning the rights of the minority. Or, if the government oversteps its limits, or some faction of the majority oppresses a minority, then the tools to punish the offenders for those transgressions are reserved for those who require it.

 

Pretty simple, right?

[2smartby1/2]

I will say, unequivocally, that anyone who suggests in any fashion that entirely removing the possibility for a teacher to have the option to more effectively protect their students by using a concealed firearm against a murderous school shooter is an idiot who fails to comprehend reality, and thus should never be given any credence or taken seriously.

 

This is not my opinion of such individuals, but rather it is both fact and an obligation by anyone with a minimum of critical thinking skills and social responsibility to consider them thusly.

That is unfortunate.

 

Your post, however eloquent it may be, boils down to....."If you don't agree with my opinion, you are an idiot who fails to comprehend reality, and should not be listened too or taken seriously"

 

I usually try to look at multiple points of view since most subjects (like this) are not black and white.

 

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong.....but it appears as though you are saying teachers should have the option be able to carry concealed, and if someone does not agree with that opinion, they are an idiot not worthy of having a discussion with.

Is that really your position? Are there no caveats?

 

Forget "my" position here. There was an earlier post (#28) about a school marshall program in Texas that has vigorous training, and does allow teachers to have weapons, but they are kept in a lock box. Are they idiots not worthy of discussion or is there a sliding scale there?

 

BTW, I read up on that program, it was very interesting. My issues with armed teachers were the serious lack of real training, and the risk of guns in a classroom. The (idiotic?) folks in Texas must have had similar concerns.

The program requires:

80 hours of training is required.

They are actually peace officers that can make arrests in limited fashion.

The gun is kept in a locked box.

A psych evaluation is required.

And I like this one.....only FRANGIBLE AMMO is allowed. (Hmmm.....I don't have my all of my parts yet, but I do have frangible .300blk ammo in a Coyote Tan mag right now.)

 

https://www.tcole.texas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/school%20marshal%20brochure.pdf

https://tcta.org/node/13612-school_marshalspeace_officers

 

What is really interesting is what the rep who created the plan specifically stated....

Villalba maintains that it is different than arming teachers, because of the selective training. “I’m no fan of what people call ‘arming the teachers’ … That’s not what the bill does. The bill creates a new class of peace officer who are highly trained individuals who can be that last line of defense, after all of the other defense mechanisms are exhausted,” he said.

 

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2018/05/21/286773/five-things-to-know-about-texas-school-marshal-program/

 

Is there even a consensus on what "arming the teachers" means? But folks are idiots for not believing what you believe. Good luck with that.

[JDW]

I built two houses in Naperville and lived there for 21 years. It went from a small, tranquil town with a huge conservative base, to gigantic, densely populated liberal bastion pretty quickly. It's way overbuilt now and so crowded, it's like being in the city. The schools were great, and our kids did well in them. For that I'm grateful. Other than that, there's not a single thing i like about it any longer. I refuse to patronize any business in Naperville, and avoid even driving into the town except for Doctor appointments. Edward Hospital went from being a dump with a poor rep to a state of the art and excellent hospital. I miss our last home there, but I don't miss all the frat boys, soccer moms, and libs.

 

I very much want to get out of Illinois, in the worst way. I never thought I'd feel that way, but here I am. If my wife ever comes to her senses, we'll be gone. The cost of living here in our area of the state is simply insanity. I was reading that our local real estate taxes are 4 times the national average and ranked around the second highest in the country. If I still had kids in the schools, I wouldn't mind at all. But, we're way past that point. The only thing I'd miss about Illinois is ASC. That's kind of sad considering I've spent my whole life here. I've had my fill, as the saying goes. Until then, I'm here to fight with y'all for our 2A rights and support what IC does. Count on that.

[Glock23]

 

I will say, unequivocally, that anyone who suggests in any fashion that entirely removing the possibility for a teacher to have the option to more effectively protect their students by using a concealed firearm against a murderous school shooter is an idiot who fails to comprehend reality, and thus should never be given any credence or taken seriously.

 

This is not my opinion of such individuals, but rather it is both fact and an obligation by anyone with a minimum of critical thinking skills and social responsibility to consider them thusly.

 

 

That is unfortunate.

 

Your post, however eloquent it may be, boils down to....."If you don't agree with my opinion, you are an idiot who fails to comprehend reality, and should not be listened too or taken seriously"

 

I usually try to look at multiple points of view since most subjects (like this) are not black and white.

 

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong.....but it appears as though you are saying teachers should have the option be able to carry concealed, and if someone does not agree with that opinion, they are an idiot not worthy of having a discussion with.

Is that really your position? Are there no caveats?

 

Forget "my" position here. There was an earlier post (#28) about a school marshall program in Texas that has vigorous training, and does allow teachers to have weapons, but they are kept in a lock box. Are they idiots not worthy of discussion or is there a sliding scale there?

 

BTW, I read up on that program, it was very interesting. My issues with armed teachers were the serious lack of real training, and the risk of guns in a classroom. The (idiotic?) folks in Texas must have had similar concerns.

The program requires:

80 hours of training is required.

They are actually peace officers that can make arrests in limited fashion.

The gun is kept in a locked box.

A psych evaluation is required.

And I like this one.....only FRANGIBLE AMMO is allowed. (Hmmm.....I don't have my all of my parts yet, but I do have frangible .300blk ammo in a Coyote Tan mag right now.)

 

https://www.tcole.texas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/school%20marshal%20brochure.pdf

https://tcta.org/node/13612-school_marshalspeace_officers

 

What is really interesting is what the rep who created the plan specifically stated....

Villalba maintains that it is different than arming teachers, because of the selective training. “I’m no fan of what people call ‘arming the teachers’ … That’s not what the bill does. The bill creates a new class of peace officer who are highly trained individuals who can be that last line of defense, after all of the other defense mechanisms are exhausted,” he said.

 

 

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2018/05/21/286773/five-things-to-know-about-texas-school-marshal-program/

 

Is there even a consensus on what "arming the teachers" means? But folks are idiots for not believing what you believe. Good luck with that.

"Excuse me, Mr. Gunman... would you mind waiting for a moment while I retrieve my firearm from its lockbox? Thanks, you're a peach!"

 

Yes, those people are idiots.

 

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

 

[Raw Power]

Should schools be soft targets for those that wish to do children harm?

 

Naperville seems to think the answer is yes.

[soylentgreen]

 

I think most things that Conservatives believe about social policies are idiotic...

 

Yet...have you noticed that society is crumbling more and more the farther we get from conservative shared values?

[Molly B.]

We are getting off topic here fellas. Let's get back to defending our schools.

 

I find it ironic that they say more guns in our schools is not the answer but after a deadly threat is already in their school, they call people with more guns to come in a hurry.

[soylentgreen]

We are getting off topic here fellas. Let's get back to defending our schools.

 

I find it ironic that they say more guns in our schools is not the answer but after a deadly threat is already in their school, they call people with more guns to come in a hurry.

 

Right. Because...for some reason...police officers can be trusted with guns...but teachers can't be! We don't have much confidence in the abilities of the people who we hand our kids over to for 12 years, apparently.

[Lou]

The same people that are comfortable with armed bank guards guarding their money are not comfortable with armed people guarding their children.

 

That says a lot.

[Tango7]

And just earlier this month, Bloomberg was in Parkland doing a midterm gun control push

http://i67.tinypic.com/1zcg4r7.jpg

[ChicagoRonin70]

 

I will say, unequivocally, that anyone who suggests in any fashion that entirely removing the possibility for a teacher to have the option to more effectively protect their students by using a concealed firearm against a murderous school shooter is an idiot who fails to comprehend reality, and thus should never be given any credence or taken seriously.

 

This is not my opinion of such individuals, but rather it is both fact and an obligation by anyone with a minimum of critical thinking skills and social responsibility to consider them thusly.

 

 

That is unfortunate.

 

Your post, however eloquent it may be, boils down to....."If you don't agree with my opinion, you are an idiot who fails to comprehend reality, and should not be listened too or taken seriously"

 

I usually try to look at multiple points of view since most subjects (like this) are not black and white.

 

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong.....but it appears as though you are saying teachers should have the option be able to carry concealed, and if someone does not agree with that opinion, they are an idiot not worthy of having a discussion with.

Is that really your position? Are there no caveats?

 

Forget "my" position here. There was an earlier post (#28) about a school marshall program in Texas that has vigorous training, and does allow teachers to have weapons, but they are kept in a lock box. Are they idiots not worthy of discussion or is there a sliding scale there?

 

BTW, I read up on that program, it was very interesting. My issues with armed teachers were the serious lack of real training, and the risk of guns in a classroom. The (idiotic?) folks in Texas must have had similar concerns.

The program requires:

80 hours of training is required.

They are actually peace officers that can make arrests in limited fashion.

The gun is kept in a locked box.

A psych evaluation is required.

And I like this one.....only FRANGIBLE AMMO is allowed. (Hmmm.....I don't have my all of my parts yet, but I do have frangible .300blk ammo in a Coyote Tan mag right now.)

 

https://www.tcole.texas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/school%20marshal%20brochure.pdf

https://tcta.org/node/13612-school_marshalspeace_officers

 

What is really interesting is what the rep who created the plan specifically stated....

Villalba maintains that it is different than arming teachers, because of the selective training. “I’m no fan of what people call ‘arming the teachers’ … That’s not what the bill does. The bill creates a new class of peace officer who are highly trained individuals who can be that last line of defense, after all of the other defense mechanisms are exhausted,” he said.

 

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2018/05/21/286773/five-things-to-know-about-texas-school-marshal-program/

 

Is there even a consensus on what "arming the teachers" means? But folks are idiots for not believing what you believe. Good luck with that.

"Excuse me, Mr. Gunman... would you mind waiting for a moment while I retrieve my firearm from its lockbox? Thanks, you're a peach!"

 

Yes, those people are idiots.

 

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

 

That pretty much answers the question unequivocally.

 

We're talking about the MOST EFFECTIVE way to stop violent murderous idiots from killing children, and it's to allow teachers who wish to be armed to readily prevent such tragedies. If they are not readily armed, to be able to respond as quickly as possible, yes, anyone who advocates otherwise is an idiot and their viewpoint should be discounted as such.

 

I never said anything about NOT TRAINING teachers who wish to be armed. In fact, it is my view that the FASTER program (http://fastersaveslives.org/) is the best program available to do so. Not only is training a good thing for safety, it makes the teachers who want to be able to stop murderous idiots more effective at doing so.

 

An armed, trained teacher with a concealed firearm that is unknown to murdererous idiots is not the "last line of defense" but rather in most cases, the FIRST and BEST option to stop a school shooter, outside of hardening schools to the point of making them prison-like.

 

Note that I keep using "murderous idiots" repeatedly, the same way I repeat "idiots." My reason for this is that I consider both the shooters and those who oppose in ANY fashion the option of allowing willing volunteers the most effective way to avert such tragedies as we are discussing, well, I consider them both threats to the children who are at risk, each in their own way just as reprehensible.

 

Yes, you read that right. If someone opposes letting willing and capable teachers arm themselves to protect children, I consider them reprehensible and complicit in any death or harm that occurs as a result.

 

As well as idiots whose opinions and viewpoints should be discounted as useless, irrelevant, and dangerous.

 

Am I clear here?