But his recent debate with CNN host Dana Bash sure isn’t going to hurt in that regard.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) confronted CNN anchor Dana Bash with just one question to expose a problem in the argument of those who do not support armed personnel on school campuses.

During an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Bash drew a connection between “helping save the lives of children” and gun control, suggesting the two are inherently connected.

But Crenshaw did not bite. Instead, he argued that stationing at least two armed guards or police officers at every school in the U.S. is a “preventative measure” that will stop mass school shootings.

“So the answer is more guns?” Bash fired back.

“The answer is armed guards, right, armed guards,” he responded. “Yes, more guns, the kind of guns that protect the president — that protect you all at CNN.”

Crenshaw then went on to note that Bash was safely ensconced in the CNN Center in Atlanta, a building with armed security and limited points of entry, unlike far too many schools.

There’s a fair bit to unpack here, so let’s start with the insinuation that gun control is inherently linked to saving the lives of children.

That’s where there is a massive disconnect between the right and left on the topic of gun control, it seems. For the anti-gun side, there is no debate humanly possible. They think the only way to save lives is through gun control. Never mind the data that shows just how often guns are used to protect people. That doesn’t matter. All that matters is gun control.

Crenshaw was right not to rise to that bait and to push back.

Next, let’s address Bash’s claim that armed security is just “more guns.”

Guns are not inherently evil. They’re objects, not people. They don’t have morals or free will. A gun left sitting on a table will do absolutely nothing unless someone picks it up.

What Bash basically argues with her snide nonsense is that guns are inherently evil, that their mere existence is the problem and, as such, they should be trusted in no one’s hands.

Crenshaw’s counter, that armed security just like they have at CNN, is the precise response needed. Bash enjoys not having to worry while she’s at work, then folks like her oppose any effort to provide that same level of security to our kids.

Now, I’m partial to more armed teachers as well as security, but there’s really no reason not to have armed guards–several of them per school–in place if we’re that serious about protecting our kids. Further, Crenshaw pointing out hardening buildings by limiting points of entry was dead on correct as well.

The truth of the matter is that we’ll never be able to just will mass shootings out of existence and gun control isn’t a winning strategy, either. Two within two days in California illustrated that, as did mass shootings all over Europe and Asia in the past year or so.

Yet we can make our schools the least viable potential target we can. This shouldn’t even be something we should have to debate beyond the details themselves. Yet Crenshaw managed to flummox someone who talks for a living by simply insisting that the protection she gets and that he gets in both the Capitol and in the building where his offices are should be in place for schools as well.

And they wonder why nothing ever gets done.