Why the Left Opposes Arming Teachers

Why does the Left oppose allowing a small number of highly trained teachers and other adults who work at schools to arm themselves?
When asked, their response is consistent: “It’s a crazy idea.” And “We need fewer guns, not more guns.”
A New York Times editorial offered the following argument against having any armed teachers: “Nationwide statistics on police shooting accuracy are not to be found. But if New York is typical, analyses show that its officers hit their targets only one-third of the time. And during gunfights, when the adrenaline is really pumping, that accuracy can drop to as low as 13 percent.”
But if that is an argument against armed teachers, why isn’t it an argument against armed police?
And that argument was Aristotelian compared to this one from a Los Angeles Times editorial: “If a pistol-strapping chemistry teacher had grabbed her .45 and unloaded on today’s gunman after he killed, what, one student? Three? Five? That would be good news?”
Of course, no murder is “good news.” But to most of us, one or three or five as compared with 17  murdered  is  good news. Only those who think it isn’t good news think permitting some teachers and other school staff to be armed is a bad idea.
Beyond such arguments, the Left rarely, if ever, explains why allowing some teachers and other adults in a school to be armed is a crazy idea. They merely assert it as a self-evident truth.
But, of course, it’s not a self-evident truth. On the contrary, having some adults who work at schools be trained in the responsible use of guns makes so much sense that the Left’s blanket opposition seems puzzling.
It shouldn’t be. On the question of taking up arms against evil, the left is very consistent.
The Left almost always opposes fighting evil and almost always works to disarm the good who want to fight.
This is as true on the national level as it is on the personal.
Those old enough to remember the Cold War will remember that the Left constantly called for a “nuclear freeze,” including a unilateral freeze by Western countries. Likewise, the European left mounted huge demonstrations against America bringing Pershing 2 missiles into Western Europe. No matter how violent the Soviet Union was, the Left always opposed a strong Western military. The Left mocked then-President Ronald Reagan’s call for an anti-ballistic missile defense system; it couldn’t understand why Americans would think being able to protect America from incoming ballistic missiles was a good and moral idea. The Left so effectively derided the idea, mockingly dubbing it “Star Wars,” that few knew its real name: the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).
So, too, the Left universally condemns Israeli attacks on those who seek not merely to defeat Israel but to exterminate it. The Left around the world condemned Israel’s military responses to Hamas launching missiles at Israeli civilian targets. They declared Israel’s counterattacks “disproportionate”—because more Gazans were killed than Israelis. Never mind which party was the aggressor or which party targeted civilians. Had the Left been as active in the 1940s, it surely would have condemned the Allies for their bombing of Germany and Japan; after all, far more German and Japanese civilians were killed in Allied bombing raids than Allied civilians were killed in German bombing raids. Now that was really “disproportionate.”
Fighting evil is the Left’s Achilles heel. As I have repeatedly noted, the Left fights little evils, or even non-evils, rather than great evils.
With regard to fighting communism in the 20th century and today fighting radical Islamic terror and Islamist treatment of women, the Stalinist North Korean regime, the Holocaust-denying and Holocaust-planning theocracy of Iran, the Syrian mass murderers and the violent crime in America, the Left is either silent or appeasing. And, of course, it works constantly to weaken the American military, the world’s greatest force against evil.
But the Left does direct its fighting spirit against Confederate statues, schools with the name of slave owners (including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson), carbon emissions, income inequality, “microaggressions,” “white privilege,” any limitation on abortion, Columbus Day, “Islamophobia,” Israeli settlements, “Russian collusion” and the like. Against these minimal or nonexistent evils, the Left is ferocious.

That is why the Left opposes enabling some teachers and other adults in schools to carry arms in order to possibly stop a mass murderer: The Left doesn’t fight evil; it fights those who do. Just as the Left hated anti-communists, hates opponents of Islamism, and hates Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (far more than the Iranian ayatollahs), it hates those who wish to see teachers and others voluntarily armed take down the murderers of our children.


Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

32 responses to “Why the Left Opposes Arming Teachers”

  1. We all know that diversity is being pushed on us, and we are told that it is a good thing.
    But have you noticed that it is only in White countries that diversity is being promoted?
    Nobody is promoting diversity in Black or Asian countries.
    Diversity means chasing down the last White child.
    It means chasing down White flight until their are no more White neighborhoods, schools, or workplaces.
    Diversity is a codeword for White genocide.
    Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.

    • We’re not all blind to it. One day soon, brother Nikola!

      • Gℴℴgle offereing the people 97 dollars every hour to work parttime from the comfort of home … Work for few hours daily & spend more time with your own family … any individual can also have this online offer!!last Sunday I got a great new Chrysler after just earnin $6327 this past six weeks .it’s definitly the most rewarding but you can now not forgive yourself if you don’t get it.!qh462x:==>> http://GoogleProductsHomeBusinessOpportunity/earn/$99/h ♥f♥♥♥c♥j♥o♥♥♥n♥♥y♥v♥♥z♥o♥u♥♥♥h♥♥♥r♥♥z♥♥♥p♥i♥♥♥n♥v♥♥♥l♥♥♥m♥♥j♥o♥s♥♥w♥♥n♥u::::!cg70n:cwcafs

    • Identity politics is bad. I know I heard that somewhere.

  2. “It shouldn’t be. On the question of taking up arms against evil, the left is very consistent.”

    No mystery here. The left consists of people who have an overwhelming need for arbitrary power, be it only vicarious arbitrary power in most cases. That requires a state monopoly on the use of lethal force. The left is just planning ahead. They are vermin.

    • Big Man attacking a high school kid for using the first Amendment. Have you tried sticking your fingers in your ears if you don’t like what he is saying. That’s what they do on the playground, Boris.

      • While , you admit to being an “American loser “, you are simply a garden variety liberal idiot.

      • You’re the reason people are rising up in a blue wave. We will debate issues respectfully, but to insult anyone who begs to differ with your view point, diminishes the points you espouse. Your ideas are losers, but you could could be genius, Boris.

      • There is no “blue wave ” moron , quit eating your mom’s Tide pods

      • Oh are you on the maroon team? Is that your best projection?

      • The kid is not innocent. John Oates says the kid knew what was going to happen in advance and the kid is complicate in the mass killing.

        My name is Robert Browning, my heritage is English. Where do you get off calling white Americans Russian, there Jew?? Where do you get the nerve Jew?? WhoTF do you think you are, Jew?

      • Your name is Ali and you are a rag head. You pretend to have “English heritage” because you realize in that dim space you call a mind, that people don’t want to hear from worshipers of illiterate pedophiles.

        Even if you were not a rag head, your speech is identical to one. Go rape your wife, the goat.

        Not Russian? But you also sound identical to a communist. Collectivism is what the commies are all about. So, a worshiper of Stalin or a rag head or both. Either way a complete and total turd.

      • “Gun violence” is a curious phrase. Almost as if a gun can become sentient and decide to discharge on its own. Would you agree that “knife violence,” “car violence,” “blunt object violence,” hand violence,” poison violence,” “ pushing someone from a tall building violence,” “rope violence,” and the like exists? People are murdered daily by things and actions other than guns. Should we ban all these instruments of violence?

        When will you looney Leftists comprehend that murder lies within the murderer not within the instrument?

        If we awake tomorrow and discover that all guns have miraculously disappeared, I guarantee that murders will continue as always. Remember Cain used a rock to murder his brother, Abel. A rock.

        Gun free zones become killing fields because the bad guy will get a gun, whereas secured and armed zones are a deterrent. This is a fact.

  3. The Left’s logic against guns is built like a deck of cards where if they concede that teachers, much less anyone else, should be allowed to arm themselves for the safety of their students, then all of their arguments come crashing down.

  4. The left doesn’t like arming teachers in schools because, largely, we believe it’ll add to the chaos and body count of a chaotic, deadly situation. A cop shows up to a shooting and sees a teacher with a gun: What happens then? Dead teacher most likely.

    We’re not convinced more guns makes more safety. Despite the fervently held belief of gun-loving conservatives, you haven’t proven it.

    • I’m not a gun-lover–never touched one. But I’m not in the least convinced by your point. If an armed bystander shot back at a gunman, either the gunman would be disabled, or he might shoot back at the bystander and disable or kill him, or the gunman might flee. It’s very unlikely that an inconclusive shootout would continue long enough for the police to arrive and find the bystander still holding the gun and shooting. I suppose there are instances where the police have arrived and erroneously shot an armed bystander, but I can’t say I remember reading about them. Can you cite any? And can you cite any studies of such situations?….In my experience “more guns makes more safety” is a straw-man argument, liberals’ misrepresentation of the position they are opposing, which is that more *trained and armed personnel* makes for safety. Certainly that is Trump’s position: he’s only said it a thousand times.

    • “Arming teachers” is not about “more guns,” it’s about having _a_ gun, in the hands of a good guy, at the right time and place. “Arming teachers,” however, as a federal fiat, is arguably as stupid as the “Gun Free School Zone;” it would encourage participation by unwise choices, probably the Popular Kids. Better to allow actually willing, and/or experienced, teachers, coaches, custodians, and administrators (they’re not on all snowflakes; it only seems that way) to be quietly vetted and trained. Read “Sheep No More” and limit access during school hours accordingly. Concealed carry is deterrent because the miscreant does not know whether the dweeb walking toward him on the darkened sidewalk is packing heat or not. bruceheiden has reasonably handled otherwise the logical rebuttal; I’ll merely suggest that, had the late coach been armed, the late unpleasantness in Florida might not have taken on a life of its own.

    • Really? No proof? You must be blind and stupid not to notice that guns protect and deter bad guys every stinking day in places like government buildings, banks, corporate office buildings. And guns protect “important” people—even those people who work to remove guns from us “not so important” people.

      Self defense is a God-given natural right. No one-especially not our government-can remove this right from law abiding citizens.

    • “We’re not convinced more guns makes more safety. Despite the fervently
      held belief of gun-loving conservatives, you haven’t proven it.”

      Is the proposition provable?

      See the graphic in the article linked below. It depicts the decline in violent crime which has occurred since 1991. This has been to some extent a worldwide decline.

      In this country, that period has coincided with a massive expansion of gun rights and gun ownership. Not so in other countries, of course.

      Some people argue that declining crime in this country during that period proves that guns haven’t made things worse. It doesn’t. Crime has declined for many reasons other than guns. Better trauma care, better policing, gentrification of once-dangerous neighborhoods…

      The numbers are nevertheless interesting. Guns might have something to do with it, who knows?


  5. This tangle of logical dead-ends is easily explained:

    The Left wants to rule over masses that have no agency. In their warped worldview, blacks, mestizos, emoting women, gays, Muslims, criminals and the greatest majority of Asians don’t have agency, acting instead with the behaviorist mechanics of lower animals or worse. That’s why “root causes” are always to blame when a member of any of these groups commits what the rest of us would deem a premeditated atrocity.

    Who has agency, then, in the Left’s mind? Answer: well-functioning White Gentiles, who have a moral conscience (damn them!) and the individual free will that comes with it. That’s why they must get medicated, confused, orphaned of their culture and certainties, and (just to be on the safe side) out-bred via Diversity™ into extinction. With the exception of their enlightened globalist Liberal rulers, of course.

    The gun, with its amulet-like power of being used for right or for wrong, is a powerful symbol of individual moral choices and the God-given Liberty to make them. That’s why if you are really attentive to their tactics, Leftist elites want to disarm not the ghetto black, the fire-breathing Muslim fanatic or the recidive border-jumper: they want to disarm us law-abiding Whites and any group who “acts” like us.

  6. This article doesn’t quite hit the nail on the head. A reason, if not the reason, that people of the “left” oppose taking up arms against enemies is that they more-or-less conceive of themselves as pacifists. And whatever the practicalities, they want to affirm their own belief in “nonviolence”, because they think it’s morally superior.

  7. The left fundamentally hates free people – we are not their constituency – but they identify with the violent, the dangerous, those opposed to our Western civilization both domestically and overseas – hence fighting to prevent the deportation of illegal alien felons, fighting the incarceration of violent criminals, siding with Muslim Islamofascists against civilized westerners.

  8. Why?
    Because they would be hit.

    That’s how you deal with the enemy.