Teachers unions have to be “nuts” to reject armed guards for schools – unless they’re just playing high risk politics, for “the cause”.

By Doug Lawrence

It’s been long enough after the Sandy Hook shootings for some clarity to begin to prevail, and at least some of the facts are now clear:

Teachers as well as students were victims of the shooter.

No one at the school was prepared or otherwise equipped to defend against such an attack, and the shooter probably knew it.

Based on the shooter’s suicidal response to the eventual arrival of help, even the most rudimentary form of armed, professional security may have served to minimize or totally prevent  the Sandy Hook attack, as well as others. 

In light of this, it’s clear that specially trained armed guards at schools would serve as a substantial deterrent to attackers … armed or otherwise … and given the huge education budget, along with high level of wasteful spending already going on, pleading a lack of funds simply won’t cut it.

So why is the Obama administration, with the full support of the teacher’s unions, rejecting the idea of armed guards in schools, in favor of  just another ineffective form of gun control?

Politics!

The left certainly wants more gun restrictions, and they are using the events at Sandy Hook as leverage in that quest. Once they have achieved as much as possible in that regard, they can always take the next logical step and quickly provide for the armed security that will protect both teachers and students, alike.

So what if a few more teachers and students have to die, in the mean time? Gun control … not school safety … is obviously the real issue … and sacrifices have to be made, for the cause!