Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: A different sort of “Madigan Tax”
Next Post: Unclear on the concept
Posted in:
* That evolved quickly…
On Friday, Gov. Rauner was in Champaign, where he said President Donald Trump’s concept of arming teachers to prevent gun violence in schools should be discussed.
“I certainly support having armed security at schools,” Rauner told reporters. “I think we should have a discussion about teachers themselves. I think there’s arguments pro and con, we should look forward to that discussion.”
By Saturday, Rauner’s campaign had emailed a statement to the Belleville News-Democrat after the the St. Clair County GOP’s Lincoln Day gala.
“No, teachers should be focused on education. We need armed school resource officers, emergency training for students, and we need to get guns out of the hands of criminals and those with mental illnesses,” the Rauner statement said, according to the newspaper.
* From that BND article…
Teachers who want to be armed should be allowed to come to school with a gun, Ives said. Teachers who do not want to be armed “absolutely should not,” she added.
“Look, you only carry if you want to,” Ives said. “If you’re not comfortable using it or you don’t regularly go for practice, then you shouldn’t carry it. If there are certain teachers who maybe have a law enforcement background, maybe have a military background, know that carrying and practicing on a regular basis could prevent a tragedy in the future, I’m willing to do that.”
* NBC 5…
“There’s so much that we need to do, but it’s not arming teachers in classrooms, or getting rid of gun-free zones around schools,” JB Pritzker said.
Fellow candidate Daniel Biss echoed those sentiments.
“The last thing I want is guns in those classrooms,” he said.
In a display of party unity, candidate Chris Kennedy slammed the president’s proposal.
“That’s like the craziest idea, and it’s offensive to everything that I believe in,” he said. “We do not want to send our children to school in a war zone.”
* In other news, the House is taking up several gun-related bills this week…
Republican lawmakers said they would review the specifics of the legislation, but they questioned whether there were ulterior motives behind Madigan’s announcement. The veteran speaker has been under fire in recent weeks for his handling of sexual harassment and bullying complaints lodged against two of his top political workers, who have since left Madigan’s campaign organizations.
“It is timely that we talk about this, but let’s not let this distract from Speaker Madigan’s own problems,” said Rep. Grant Wehrli, a Republican from Naperville and frequent critic of the speaker. “He continues to hide from the accusations within his own organization, and once again is trying to slink off.”
Madigan’s call for action was backed by Cardinal Blase Cupich, who was invited to the Capitol for Wednesday’s votes. Gun control supporters also are planning a large rally.
“It is not too much to say that innocent people are dying as much from lack of courage and political will among our leaders as from bullets,” Cupich said in a statement.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:12 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: A different sort of “Madigan Tax”
Next Post: Unclear on the concept
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Rauner’s demonstrated over the years that he doesn’t have much knowledge or interest in policy, or how it’s executed.
He’s got the whiny-victim thing down cold, though.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:18 am
=== but they questioned whether there were ulterior motives behind … ===
No, you don’t say.
Could there be ulterior motives about your claim of ulterior motives?
Enough of the rhetoric, focus on discussing gun control and other measures to prevent violence.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:19 am
Of course, those who say Rep. Grant Wehrli has ulterior motives for saying Speaker Madigan has ulterior motives for calling the bills have ulterior motives themselves.
You see, it’s turtles all the way down
Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:23 am
–..we need to get guns out of the hands of criminals and those with mental illnesses,” the Rauner statement said, according to the newspaper.–
Then, as chief executive, start enforcing current state law in regards to those whose FOID cards have been revoked after due process of law.
You’re in charge. Do your job.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-illinois-guns-foid-cards-revoked-met-20170206-story.html
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:25 am
I’m always surprised to find conservative who want to arm union members.
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:39 am
Wordslinger: I agree that guns should not be possessed by revoked foid holders but as a matter of practicality how do the state police do that? If cops show up at the door of someone with a revoked foid without a warrant, they can’t go in and seize them unless the occupants agree to allow that.
I don’t see a judge issuing a search warrant to police based on the revocation of a foid card.
If we are the only state that has a foid type requirement, how do other states handle this issue? Does any state handle this situation well? I doubt it is legal for anyone in any state to possess firearms under these conditions, foid card law or not.
Comment by Freezeup Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:50 am
We are one of 4 states with a FOID type card.
Comment by Todd Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:01 am
Did I read that the IEA came out against arming teachers?
Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:07 am
It’s gotta be tough for Bruce.
One minute union teachers are the problem.
The next minute they are the solution.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:11 am
==Did I read that the IEA came out against arming teachers? ==
IEA, NEA, IFT, AFT oppose because teachers overwhelming oppose this proposal. That Trump and others (at the urging of the NRA) put this out there without even pretending to listen to what teachers think proves how little they actually care about the issue.
Comment by WTF Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:13 am
=Did I read that the IEA came out against arming teachers?=
Every education organization that I am aware of is against arming teachers.
Food for thought, according to the Christian Science Monitor only 23% of shots fired by police hit the intended target. There is other research out there but that is national data. The best research was for one large metro police department and their precentage was just shy of 50%.
What does that mean? It means that trained professionals, when confronted with a situation that they believe warrants shooting are only accurate with their weapons on the high side 50% of the time and the national average is 23% by one account. When “group” shooting (meaning more than one officer is involved) occurs, the accuracy rates declines as the number involved increases.
And now we want teachers (even with so called training) to carry guns? Insane. I have my CCL and do not think carrying at school is a good idea.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:20 am
No faux pas for Rauner here. Arming teachers was briefly discussed nationally, but enough experts suggested that this is not good policy. Fair enough.
Chicago has high gun violence. We must note that the far majority of this violence are from illegal guns.
The AR-15 used in Florida was bought legally, so linking mental health risks to gun purchases is a priority.
Comment by Blimp Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:21 am
Even if you thought it was a good and effective idea, how many kids can an armed attacker mow down before he’s stopped by an armed teacher? That’s the most obvious flaw in the argument.
Comment by NoGifts Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:22 am
If we want to arm teachers, every school board and administrator needs to ask: Where is the gun & how is it secured?
To be of any use in a crisis, the gun needs to be loaded and easily accessible to the teacher, but that also means its loaded and easily accessible to students. When you walk through scenarios, its difficult to see how any perceived benefit outweighs the very real risk of a student having access to a loaded gun within the classroom. We need to work on keeping guns out of schools, not looking for ways to bring them in.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:25 am
NoGifts, the answer is
Potentially fewer than if he is not stopped.
Comment by Tequila Mockingbird Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:28 am
I am not a gun owner, but I find this whole argument that because a teacher (or other “good guy”) might freeze up, might not be able to stop the shooter, etc. that the best alternative is for everyone to sit like ducks waiting to be gunned down. Other than running, if you can, the most effective way to disrupt and potentially stop an active shooter is for people to fight back hard — whether its throwing chairs, trying to tackle the shooter, or, yes, if possible, shoot him. It’s not the only or perfect solution, but it must be part of it. Everyone always makes it sound like the shooter will be this invincible, unstoppable, highly accurate killer, and any “good guy” will be a bumbling, scared, irrational, wanna-be hero shooting all willy-nilly without regard to anyone else around him or her. That just doesn’t match up with reality — there are lots of examples of “good guys with guns” that have stopped “bad guys.” Again, it’s not for everyone, but it’s not irrational or insane.
Comment by Just Observing Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:39 am
NoGifts-silly comment, and Tequila answered it right. Pot Calling kettle, the only safe place for it is on the weapon carrier’s person. In a holster, on a belt; Not in a purse, or in a drawer; the person has to be prepared to live with it. Quite frankly, most CCL carriers are not. Most teachers would not carry a weapon, even if they could. But for those who can live with those terms, then maybe it should be an option.
Comment by downstate commissioner Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:42 am
wordslinger you are on fire
Comment by huh Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:51 am
=== the only safe place for it is on the weapon carrier’s person ===
In these school districts, in a plan developed by the Sheriff, the school has hidden safes peppered throughout the school that can only be accessed by select, trained staff. I’m not saying it’s a good or bad idea, just that it is an alternative to staff carrying at all times:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/22/ohio-school-districts-train-teachers-to-handle-guns-are-our-safety.html
Comment by Just Observing Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 12:02 pm
–Wordslinger: I agree that guns should not be possessed by revoked foid holders but as a matter of practicality how do the state police do that?–
Read the link I posted.
And ask the Illinois chief executive. He currently has the tools to get guns from those who’ve been found in a court of law to be a danger to the public. He just said that is a priority. He is choosing not to use those tools.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 12:05 pm
=the best alternative is for everyone to sit like ducks waiting to be gunned down=
I’d suggest that you google “Australia automatic weapons ban”. You might find that there’s a better best alternative to consider.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 12:13 pm
Downstate commissioner - you’re satisfied the problem is solved with “fewer” children killed?
Comment by NoGifts Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 12:16 pm
Gotta love that Australian model of police entering homes to ensure your guns are locked up. That national gun registry would be a big hit.
Comment by Blue dog dem Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 12:25 pm
=== the only safe place for it is on the weapon carrier’s person ===
In the classroom, we expect the teacher to circulate among the students in close quarters, helping students learn. When a teacher is focused on helping a student at their desk, how difficult would it be for another student to grab that loaded gun? Adolescents act impulsively with little thought to the consequences (that’s basic brain research). I am not comfortable with this scenario…
===the school has hidden safes peppered throughout the school ===
In this scenario, what good is a locked up gun? When an incident occurs, the teachers need to be moving the students to safety, not fetching guns in locked safes. By the time the gun is accessed, the incident is over or the students are locked in rooms and we know from experience that shooters don’t mess with locked doors. So, why bother with this whole setup?
The bottom line is that either the gun is locked up and of no use or it is easily accessible and a constant potential threat. (I’m not talking about armed officers on campus, I’m talking about guns in classrooms.)
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 12:38 pm
–Gotta love that Australian model of police entering homes to ensure your guns are locked up. That national gun registry would be a big hit.–
Yeah, let’s give those “thoughts and prayers” a little more time to prevent some mass shootings.
You sure do have some sense of entitlement — unlimited rights, no responsibilities. As long as it’s someone else’s kids getting massacred, who cares?
You just say “thoughts and prayers,” like you do “God Bless you” when someone sneezes. Same effort, same sincerity, same effectiveness.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 12:48 pm
=yes, if possible, shoot him. It’s not the only or perfect solution, but it must be part of it. Everyone always makes it sound like the shooter will be this invincible, unstoppable, highly accurate killer, and any “good guy” will be a bumbling, scared, irrational, wanna-be hero shooting all willy-nilly without regard to anyone else around him or her. That just doesn’t match up with reality — there are lots of examples of “good guys with guns” that have stopped “bad guys.” Again, it’s not for everyone=
So introducing more errant bullets is a good idea? There are many other ideas out there that don’t introduce more gunfire and make an unsafe situation even less so.
Most shootings are ambush style, there isn’t a clear cut one-on-one situation where the shooter is clear of other people and that makes it more likely that innocent victims will fall to friendly fire.
You are right, these shooters are not invincible etc. no one is building them up, just using facts and data to support the belief that arming staff is a poor solution to the issue.
We would be better to have dogs trained in personal protection in every school similar to police K-9 units.
=but it’s not irrational or insane.=
Ignoring facts and data is exactly irrational and insane.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 12:57 pm
=the best alternative is for everyone to sit like ducks waiting to be gunned down=
=== I’d suggest that you google “Australia automatic weapons ban”. You might find that there’s a better best alternative to consider. ===
It’s not happening here, at least in the foreseeable future, and no politician is even hinting at something like that. So you can point to Australia all day long as an example, and people will continue to die because nobody is talking serious proposals.
Comment by Just Observing Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 1:13 pm
=== So introducing more errant bullets is a good idea? There are many other ideas out there that don’t introduce more gunfire and make an unsafe situation even less so.
Most shootings are ambush style, there isn’t a clear cut one-on-one situation where the shooter is clear of other people and that makes it more likely that innocent victims will fall to friendly fire. ===
Well, first, your premise is that a trained conceal carry holder would be unable to use any sort of reasonable judgment as to whether or not it would be safe or relatively safe (given the conditions) to exchange fire.
But overall, yes, introducing more bullets directed toward the shooter is, in fact, a very good idea. You are talking about people already in the most horrendous, dangerous situation you can imagine with very few options… people are already dying and being shot. I highly doubt anyone in that situation is thinking, “gee, I’m so glad nobody else here has a gun to possibly disable the shooter, I’d rather just wait five minutes while a madman is shooting off round after round, for the police.”
Comment by Just Observing Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 1:20 pm
Since the USSC in the Heller decision that everyone is a member of the Militia, that Militia is Regulated by the Government under the Second Anendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Do your job Congress, Regulate the Militia.
Comment by Mike Cirrincione Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 1:26 pm
=
=Gotta love that Australian model of police entering homes to ensure your guns are locked up. That national gun registry would be a big hit.=
Australia enacted their automatic weapons ban following a mass shooting in 1996. Today in Australia the homicide rate per 100K is .16 and in the U.S. it’s 3.60. The problem is solvable.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 1:36 pm
Wordy. You keep your fingers crossed hoping the politicians do something to prevent these shootings. I’ll keep praying.
Comment by Blue dog dem Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 1:38 pm
To add to JSM’s point, who’s paying for the gun, lessons, and annual marksmanship training? Who’s insuring me if I hit someone or if my gun is taken and used to harm others? Who’s paying for my crisis counseling if I shoot someone?
Comment by Jocko Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 1:57 pm
–You keep your fingers crossed hoping the politicians do something to prevent these shootings. I’ll keep praying.–
Sure you will. Geusendheit.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 2:06 pm
Pundent. Just wondering about your thoughts on stop and frisk.
Comment by Blue dog dem Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 2:12 pm
–geusendheit. Thank you. Maybe that federal FOID card will be the political answer.
Comment by Blue dog dem Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 2:13 pm
–Maybe that federal FOID card will be the political answer.–
How’s about enforcing the state law on FOID cards revoked by due process of law?
Or would that infringe on your sense of entitlement that is not supported by any judicial interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 2:18 pm
=== To add to JSM’s point, who’s paying for the gun, ===
In most cases, from what I understand in states that allow teachers to carry, the teacher generally pays. Although some schools, provide their own guns. Guns aren’t that expensive.
=== lessons, and annual marksmanship training? ===
From what I understand, the schools.
=== Who’s insuring me if I hit someone or if my gun is taken and used to harm others? ===
Don’t know, fair question, but schools have a ton of liability issues, I can’t imagine a gun rider is too expensive to add to an insurance policy.
=== Who’s paying for my crisis counseling if I shoot someone? ===
I don’t know. Who’s paying for your crisis counseling if someone if you get in a car accident and kill someone? Who’s paying for your crisis counseling if a child dies in your swimming pool?
These are all fair questions, but hardly insurmountable.
Comment by Just Observing Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 2:20 pm
As I posted the other day. Give teachers tasers and training on how to use them. There are two shot tasers with laser sights that would be effective in stopping single gunmen in the classroom.
I do not support putting more firearms in the classroom. Too easily accessed by students and too likely to hit the wrong people
Comment by Last Bull Moose Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 2:21 pm
Wordslinger- My bad. I missed it. I went back and re-read and found the lines about allowing police to apply for a search warrant.
I found this article that discusses the process of disarming a person no longer allowed to possess a firearm in Illinois. Thought it had good info in it.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/disarming-prohibited-persons-in-illinois/
Here is the link to the FOID Card Act:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1657&ChapterID=39
I know everyone here is capable of googling it themselves but FOID is something I thought I understood better than I actually did.
Here is the relevant section regarding application for search warrant:
(c) If the person whose Firearm Owner’s Identification Card has been revoked fails to comply with the requirements of this Section, the sheriff or law enforcement agency where the person resides may petition the circuit court to issue a warrant to search for and seize the Firearm Owner’s Identification Card and firearms in the possession or under the custody or control of the person whose Firearm Owner’s Identification Card has been revoked.
I think that a judge would want to know on what basis the officer believes that the FOID card or firearms are at the location to be searched. I will not pretend to be an expert but I’m pretty sure there would have to be a reasonable belief that those items are there.
I will add that executing search warrants at houses looking for firearms would not be as easy as it sounds. I would not expect people to make them easy to find. It is not a task one or two or three officers could reasonably or safely perform. You would be able to do one location, maybe two, per day, per team. It would be a big job statewide and it would be a dangerous job, much more dangerous than “regular” day to day police work.
This needs to be done. I doubt that Illinois is up to the task though. The resources just aren’t there.
Comment by Freezeup Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 2:37 pm
JSM, I appreciate your input here a great deal. I read another article over the weekend that said the police accuracy rate for a subset of departments was only 18%. I imagine there are a number of commenters here with either CCL, police, and/or military firearms training and I would venture a guess that almost none would support arming teachers. I sure don’t.
Just Wondering, you realize that all those “hardly insurmountable” issues you wave away are subject to collective bargaining, right?
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 2:37 pm
The shooter in Florida wore legally bought body armor and a helmet he modeled on YouTube. What size gun, bullets, or tazers are needed to penetrate that equipment? Small stuff would simply irritate the shooter to aim toward you. Remember those armoured bank robbers in California. They completely out gunned the police and thousands of rounds were fired over a long period of time. You really think a handgun against an AR is a good idea?
Comment by zatoichi Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 2:55 pm
1. Police have no duty to protect the individual under any theory of liability. (US Supreme Ct).
2. When seconds count, police may be minutes away.
3. YOU are responsible for your own safety.
4. Gun-free zones mean helpless victims.
5. Even a small-caliber gun can stop someone.
6. Stop comparing the US to Australia; Australians have NO right to keep or bear arms…and there violent crime rates surged after their forced confiscation. Ditto for England and their anti-gun and anti-self defense laws.
7. Change Illinois law–if you have a concealed carry permit, you may carry in a school.
8. Remember in Illinois, FOID and CCW holders are checked 360 days a year for prohibiting status changes to criminal and mental health records. I wonder how many non-FOID/CCW holders would subject themselves to that level of scrutiny, but claim law-abiding gun owners and their guns are the problem?
Comment by rievvedup Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 4:11 pm
To add a bit to Freezeup’s very thorough comment, I suspect that many departments (for liability if no other reason) would not go to seize weapons from forfeited FOID holders with less resources than any other search warrant team, which may be six or more SWAT-level officers with heavy weapons and backup officers. Very few agencies have this level of resources available to commit on a continuing basis.
On a different note, our brave POTUS announced earlier today that he would have run in to the school in Florida “without a gun.” Assuming, I guess, that his bone spurs didn’t act up.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 4:16 pm
=== I imagine there are a number of commenters here with either CCL, police, and/or military firearms training and I would venture a guess that almost none would support arming teachers. I sure don’t. ===
Twelve states already allow teachers to carry. Many (but certainly not all) of the plans put into place by local districts were designed by and have the support of the local police.
Comment by Just Observing Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 4:19 pm
=== Small stuff would simply irritate the shooter to aim toward you. ===
You are spouting out advice as fact that is contrary to most current active shooter training. Experts are teaching students and employees to throw anything and everything at active shooters — pencils, staplers, chairs, etc. To say that it will just irritate the shooter to the point of aiming at you, could be very wrong advice that gets people killed. What is your security training?
Comment by Just Observing Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 4:26 pm
=== there are two shot tasers with laser sights that would be effective in stopping single gunmen in the classroom. ===
That may not be a bad idea. Rubber bullets in guns might not be a bad idea either. Security experts might disagree, though — I don’t know.
Comment by Just Observing Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 4:28 pm
All this arming teachers talks is just a flippant way of pretending to do something.
If you want armed security at schools, hire trained professionals.
That will cost money.
Still with it?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 4:31 pm
Zatoichi. It is always possible for the good guys to be outgunned. I would rather have a taser in a classroom than a firearm with armor piercing rounds. For most assailants, the taser will work better.
Would you suggest armored school buses? They too are soft targets.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 4:37 pm
Rauner’s Romeneyesque flip-flopping notwithstanding, Heller, a landmark gun rights ruling issued by a conservative SCOTUS, makes clear guns can be restricted and regulated.
I’m past sick and tired of mass slaughterings with assault weapons and high capacity magazines. It’s time to severely restrict or ban those. I hold a FOID and in no way do I feel threatened by gun control. I stand with the Florida students who were smeared as crisis actors, just like the Sandy Hook victims and families.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 4:47 pm
=If you want armed security at schools, hire trained professionals.
That will cost money.
Still with it?=
Amen Word! When the rubber meets the road no one is going to pony up any serious money to address this issue. It is all about talking points and sounding serious.
@Grandson of A Man- Bravo!
@AA- Great point about Trump! He is like every butched up sideline hero. His words remind me of the SRO at Parkland that was very brave in a city council meeting but when the time came to act he “called it in”.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 5:00 pm
Grandson. Any magazine holding over seven rounds should be well regulated. This is what, in my opinion, makes a semi-auto an assault weapon. Here I believe is where I think common ground can be found. A federal seven to ten day period for a background check is ok by me as well. Then we can get rid of the useless FOID. it has not shown to be a deterrent. Federal minimum sentencing should be increased and enforced(For gun crimes).States should have to follow suit.
Comment by blue dog dem Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 5:01 pm
To rievvedup and others who are like-minded. I hope you’re as cavalier about teachers being armed when mistakes inevitably happen. I’m sure Jeanne Ives will rally to my defense of injuring or killing a child, so long as I’m not a homo-activist.
Comment by Jocko Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 5:04 pm
I have friend who is a teacher and a CCL holder; they do exist.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 6:37 pm
–I have friend who is a teacher and a CCL holder; they do exist.–
Who said they didn’t? I wonder what that has to do with anything?
Are you confident that armed school security is some part-time gig like recess duty between classes?
Either you take armed security seriously, and are willing to pay to do it the right way, or it’s a joke.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 6:47 pm
RNUG. My daughter is a teacher and CCL holder. In Chicago. For her own safety, I would like to see training made available.
Comment by Blue dog dem Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 7:46 pm
The general consensus seems to be not to arm teachers. We can ban anything you consider an “assault” weapon, but understand that there are many firearms in circulation, short of a house to house seizure, there will still be a lot left in circulation, mostly among those we are trying to disarm. That is just the reality.
Someone mentioned the Militia, this is a great idea actually. Find returning veterans from the War on Terror, concentrate on combat arms soldiers. Give them the proper mental health checks, arm them if they do not own their own firearm, and muster them in small squads in and around schools in uniform. Their primary mission is to protect our children and grandchildren. Many of them are parents as well and will take the mission seriously. The secondary mission is to provide a positive presence of what our military is. Pay would come from the same funds providing pay to the National Guard, and pay will be by military rank.
Military people who served in these combat areas did not just kill people and break things, they worked with locals to get information about threats. A kid like the one in Florida who had been reported to the FBI, visited by the local police police numerous times, and even checked on by DCFS would have been well watched by military professionals. Some of which would have pressed the local law enforcement to do more than lip service in his case. They would have recognized him coming into the school even tho he was moved to another and did not belong there.
I think this is a real solution to attempt that would actually do something beyond hoping gun control laws work. It provides employment, protection and a real sense of security.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 7:47 pm
FormerParatrooper. Exactly.
Comment by Blue dog dem Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 7:50 pm
Example of what could happen to teachers wanting to pack in school:
Police shoot hero http://bit.ly/2EOoklT
Comment by Norseman Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 8:13 pm
–Pay would come from the same funds providing pay to the National Guard, and pay will be by military rank.–
OK. There are 4,300 schools in Illinois operating 180 or so official school days (most schools have something going on all summer and on weekends).
Who’s paying these “national guard” salaries, again, and what’s the ballpark estimate?
It’s not real until you put a number on it.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 10:03 pm
My reply has disappeared. Short answer 5 million a year.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Monday, Feb 26, 18 @ 11:25 pm
My two kids both teach. Both teach high school. One teaches special ed, one teaches autistic. Both do not wish to carry guns, neither has any history of gun use. Both are concerned that a student could overpower a teacher and take their gun. Maybe it’s just my kids since they work with special kids, but doesn’t anyone else have this consern?
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 3:09 pm