While the nation contemplates what, if anything, should be done to protect our children at school in the wake of the horrific Sandyhook massacre, we should probably consider what the teachers would have been able to do under the law to defend themselves.

In a “workplace violence” policy set down by governor John Rowland in Connecticut in 1999, all state employees were severely restricted from defending themselves:

The State of Connecticut adopts a statewide zero tolerance policy for workplace violence. Therefore, except as may be required as a condition of employment-

• No employee shall bring into any state work site any weapon or dangerous instrument as defined herein.
• No employee shall use, attempt to use, or threaten to use any such weapon or dangerous instrument in a state work site.

 Weapon means any firearm, including a BB gun, whether loaded or unloaded, any knife (excluding a small pen or pocket knife), including a switchblade or other knife having an automatic spring release device, a stiletto, any police baton or nightstick or any martial arts weapon or electronic defense weapon.

So “zero tolerance” meant a state employee of Connecticut couldn’t even wield a knife larger than a pen-knife or a tazer to defend themselves against someone attacking them.

This was the same Governor that instituted the “snitch on your neighbor” law, supposedly meant to keep guns out of the mentally disturbed. So if gun laws are the answer, why didn’t these laws keep guns out of the hands of Adam Lanza?

 
Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.
%d bloggers like this: