You’ve read a lot in the last few weeks about liberals arguing against the “good guy with a gun” philosophy, even when it comes to police or other armed security. One local politician in Wisconsin took that a step further and actually explained why it might be a bad idea to have an armed officer at a bank:

No, seriously:

This is part of the letter in opposition to an armed officer at a local bank:

I do wonder if an armed guard at this location truly makes us safer. I don’t want to talk anyone out of their gut feeling on this because you know best what safety means for you. I am concerned that if there is one armed guard at the branch, that instead of one person trying to rob the bank without an actual weapon, as we saw frequently before now, that we might see a group of assailants, armed with powerful guns, attempt a robbery. We do an okay job setting up our officers with weapons, but we don’t need to get into an arms race with would-be robbers. That would be terribly unsafe for everyone in the vicinity, not least our officers.

The local politician is a District 3 representative on the Madison Common Council. Yet another example to offer up the next time the pro-gun-control side claims that nobody’s saying the Left’s opposition to “good guy with a gun” includes police and security.

You can’t make this stuff up. “We don’t need to get into an arms race with would-be robbers” would make a heck of a campaign slogan for some liberal Democrat! They should consider it.