The Pro-Gun side is wrongly framing the debate for arming teachers…

And we are losing because of it.

Here is the deal… Teachers and Administrators are predominantly Liberals. Not all are, but on a macro level and across the nation as a whole this is most certainly the case. It is also the case that the further up the food chain that you go and as you start getting into the high ranking administrators that are really driving the policy inside of entire school systems… Well, they are overwhelmingly Liberals and they are anti-gun.


Here is where our side is getting things wrong…

I have talked with several Superintendents and national figures in the education department and every single one of them have the viewpoint on this is that teachers are not and can not be expected to be cops/tactical response teams. Their thinking on this is that teachers that don’t want to be armed will be forced to be armed. They will be forced to carry guns and be forced to run towards the bullets if the unthinkable happens. This is also the thinking of many of the non-teachers that are opposed to this.

Here is the thing… that’s a completely reasonable argument, and its one that will win this debate if we don’t re-frame this conversation. Right now, I think that it is winning the argument. Few schools allow teachers to be armed.

While many teachers out there have concealed carry permits and want nothing more than to actively protect the lives of their beloved students, many teachers are scared to death of guns. There are a great many teachers who would run towards and engage a gunman without hesitation. While others are terrified of even holding a gun.

So here is how we change the conversation, and here is how we win…

  • The primary talking point on this needs to be that we need to pass legislation that will allow teacher’s the right to defend themselves and the lives of their students should the unthinkable happen.
  • We do NOT need to say that we want teachers to be armed. What teachers and administrators hear when we say that is that we want to REQUIRE all teachers to carry a gun and to go charging towards the bullets.
  • We need to communicate that anyone who is opposed to allowing teachers to have a gun in their classroom (kept in a bio-metric safe to further calm their fears) is saying that a teacher’s life is not important.
  • We need to communicate that anyone who is opposed to allowing a teacher the right to armed self defense is saying that they do not value the lives of students.
  • We need to communicate that anyone who is opposed to allowing a teacher the right to armed self defense is essentially saying that they want teachers die. That they want students to die.
  • We also need to communicate that the big importance here is that by allowing teachers to be armed it poisons the well. Even if an individual school has no teachers who choose to be armed, if the schools can still make it publicly known that schools in their district/state have armed teachers then this will act as a deterrent and protect all schools in that district/state.
  • We need to communicate that police officers should be in every school so that they can be the ones to run towards the gunman. We want teachers to be able to armed if they choose so that they can defend themselves and their students as a means of last resort.

Here is the conversation that we need to be having…

If a gunman gets into a school and the students are cowering in the coroner of a classroom, what is a teacher going to do if the gunman walks into her classroom? Having an unarmed teacher trying to act as a human shield is not acceptable. In that scenario, there is a 100% chance that the teacher will die. There is a 100% chance that those students will die. Why do you want teachers to die? Why do you want students to die? If, however, the gunman enters the classroom and walks into a wall of bullets then that scenario drastically changes. Now that teacher and those students actually have a chance to survive.  Why would you not want a teacher to have a means of last resort to to defend her life and the lives of her students? Teachers deserve that choice. The lives of teachers are far more important than politics. The lives of students are far more important than politics. We need to pass legislation that will let teachers choose.


  1. My answer is my normal ” WHAT DID the Israelis do”? AND might add STILL do. IT works. Their WALLS work also.

  2. The OP is prompting us to think about the debate differently; and, that is constructive. I’m not convinced that he can turn the argument by insisting: “allow teacher’s the right to defend themselves”. I’m afraid that our opponents will simply do what he claims they are already falsely claiming: “we want to REQUIRE all teachers to carry a gun”.

    The OP is correct, we need to find a way to turn the argument. I think this is best done by calling upon our opponents to step-up-to-the-plate.

    We ask: ‘What, specifically’ do you propose? Nothing? More armed police? Why do you want gunmen with guns in prominently-marked blue uniforms? Will they have GUNS? Harden the perimeter? Parents and grandparents volunteering with guns? Custodians with guns? Administrators with guns? How about bigger NO-GUN signs? Smaller NO-GUN signs? What is it that you propose?’

    Their response will be, of course, “fewer guns”. Then, we ask, why do legislators have so many armed guards? Courthouses? Even Social Security Administration branch offices? Even the museums on the National Mall in Washington DC have armed guards. Why are armed guards appropriate in one place but not in the other place. Why is a Federal museum different from a community school?

    Nothing is going to change until individual school districts get un-chained from State Gun-Free-School laws. Change these laws and one-school-at-a-time will pick its own solution. Parents in Blue States will be slow-learners; but they will learn.

Comments are closed.