Previous Post
Next Post

TTAG reader Connor writes:

I wanted to share with you my experience last week at the University of Rhode Island, where we had a gun threat. Officially there was never a gunman, thank God. But I was so appalled by URI’s lockdown procedures that I felt I needed to write to you. Given the current issues of school safety, this incident reinforced with me the idea that a lockdown won’t do much without someone to actively end the shooting. In fact, the procedure at URI may have even made it easier for a shooter. URI is effectively a gun free zone, as our campus police do not even carry arms. To defend the school, we have to wait for real police, some 10-15 min away. Anyway, here is what happened on Thursday, April 5th, 2013 . . .

I am a sophomore at the University of Rhode Island and while sitting in class last week, I overheard another student say something about a shooter. She told me there was a gunman not to far from the building I was in. About ten minutes later, and 29 minutes after the first 911 call, I received a text message from the university’s automatic alert system: THERE IS A POSSIBLE ACTIVE SHOOTER ON CAMPUS. ALL FACULTY, STAFF, AND STUDENTS STAY WHERE THEY ARE UNTIL FURTHER UPDATES.

The school was on lockdown for almost 3 hours. Thankfully, no shots were fired that day. The official report is that there was never any gunman, just some confusion from a plastic Nerf gun. But that’s not what’s interesting about what happened.

A lockdown is hailed as the solution to a school shooting. Stay put, lock the doors, wait for the cops. What URI did was a “lockdown” in name only. In my classroom, once we had official confirmation of a threat, we took a quiz. A possible active shooter and we were heads down, taking a quiz. The professor decided that it wasn’t a big deal and kept going with the lesson, taking no action to secure the room.

Meanwhile, the class was understandably nervous. Throughout this whole ordeal, the door to my classroom remained unlocked. I’ll repeat that: THE DOOR WAS UNLOCKED DURING THE LOCKDOWN. The professor was sitting in a chair in front of a glass door, just hanging out. Students and professors were entering and exiting the class as if nothing happened. I repositioned myself in the room as to not be in a potential line of fire, but every time that door opened, I tensed up and prepared myself for what might happen.

After maybe an hour and a half of this hellish “lockdown” I decided I’d had enough. The news reports people had looked up indicated that there seemed to be no shooter, no shots were heard all day, nobody was harmed, no sirens were heard and the university hadn’t sent any new information. I made the (in hindsight, stupid as all hell) decision to leave the building, but I felt unsafe where I was.

So I moved to another building where my buddy let me in. Nobody stopped me from leaving or questioned me while I was walking. I wasn’t the only one out there. I must have seen 30 other kids milling about on my short walk. Come to find out, the kids evacuated from the hall the “shooter” was in just hung around outside. I did not see a single cop outside, however. If there really had been a shooter, there would almost certainly have been a ridiculous number of deaths inflicted. Also, the university did a God-awful job of notifying students. The gunman would have had a half hour to run anywhere on campus before anyone was any the wiser.

An aside: the building where the “shooter” first appeared was evacuated by a fire alarm. At worst, this funneled everyone into the hall where the shooter could have killed scores, and at best, he could have slipped away in the crowd.

I suppose this goes to show that lockdowns don’t do what people think they do. They don’t guarantee the safety of anyone, they only guarantee stationary targets. Someday, another school will encounter a real gunman. If lockdown laziness such as what happened at URI is common elsewhere, then we have an education system that can’t protect those who trust it, and school shootings will indeed become more deadly.

What really gets me though, is that our president is saying our school acted admirably and exemplary, doing everything by the book and keeping our students safe. That is supreme bullshit. I have never felt so helpless in my life, and I hope I never again will.

The school and society ask us to put our safety in their hands. They tell us they can protect us. They tell us that we don’t need weapons, just the campus police. (Again, at URI, the police are unarmed. For the children?) In this case, URI has failed to keep me and the rest of the students safe. And I am pissed. I am 19, and the day I am eligible, I will get my LTC and I will take responsibility for my safety. I pray that by then the university (and the state) will let me protect myself. There is no such thing as a safe campus, only one that hasn’t yet felt the fear of being unarmed and helpless, at the mercy of a madman.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Don’t try to understand what goes on in the mind of a liberal, Connor, it is some strange chemical process involving rainbows and unicorn farts.

    • Seriously. I have no idea what is going through their minds either. Are they really that naive? or is there some kind of hidden agenda? They say things like “gun violence” needs to stop and it is a stupid idea that more guns equates to less crime and less “gun violence.” They want to ban guns and all possession thereof. It is like… they see in black and white, really I don’t know how to describe it. I guess these people follow the law to the letter, question nothing (ever) – be it news or politics, and have always assumed that everyone else is doing the same. Culturally, they are very similar. They seem to think alike, and dream of some utopia where violence doesn’t exist. They are afraid of guns, they don’t want to carry guns, they don’t want people around them to carry guns, and in seeking this end they try to push their “ideals” on everyone else. I’ll try to talk to them, reason with them, but they enjoy listening to what they agree with and any reasonable concept regarding gun ownership goes in one ear and out the other.

      I mean… what is wrong with these people.

      • “They are afraid of guns, they don’t want to carry guns, they don’t want people around them to carry guns”

        That is it, you hit the nail square on the head. This is what it is all about in their minds.

        At a higher level I personally believe it is about control, but at the mindless individual progressive level, they are afraid. It is the ultimate irony. Liberals have succesfully removed morality from our society, education, and government, but have no rational clue how to deal with the consequences of the society they have created.

        • I go to school at Umaine Orono and we don’t have this bollocks. ROTC does drills occasionally in school buildings (or I assume ROTC, who else would be running around in ACUs with M16s on a college campus) at 3 in the morning and the cops have more firepower than I would expect, plus all the commuter guys (in majors like Forestry, Parks and Rec, stereotypically manly majors) have more firepower than the cops, especially when something is in season (so all winter basically) lol.

      • It’s called ‘mental retardation’, it is an illness carried by those who are deathly afraid of their base human/animal instincts. They have lost the inborn sense of survival so they try to artificially level the playing field for their kind. Left to nature’s own devices, they would soon become extinct….which wouldn’t be a bad thing really.

    • There was a cop at Columbine. More cops around with guns and more guns around a shooter doesn’t mean shit. It only means that he can take a hostage now and make demands. Read the accounts of that day. He called the SWAT team which waited outside.

      All of this horseshit that you should be able to carry a gun around school is retarded. Schools need to be gun free zones and are places of learning, not prisons. I should not look to my left in a classroom and see Joey holding his Glock instead of a textbook.

      The amendment says a “well regulated militia”. We need to understand these words and what they mean.

      • I thought the cop at columbine was on lunch break out in the parking lot and never went inside.

        Anyhow I wanted to point out that we do know what well regulated militia means. It means a properly working civil defense force, drilled in the basic military tactics of the day.

        Regulated in this sense has nothing to do with government oversight, or “regulations”.

        Furthermore, that phrase is added to make a more communicative sentence; to add a bit of background to the meat: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Have you done much reading on the subject? Here is a good link covering the history:

        Have a nice day, and welcome to the truth about guns!

        • I disagree.

          Because the cop didn’t do anything it’s a perfect example as to other situations and what might and is likely to happen, which is that not everyone is rambo and will run around shooting at someone and hitting them everytime. I wouldn’t want a teacher with a gun shooting down a hallway at a shooter with innocent people around, that’s a job for a trained professional. Even police hit innocent bystanders all the time. Not everyone who shoots a gun hits it in the center of the target every time, let’s be real here.

          Furthermore, the example of Columbine shows that a shooter running around and then a cop running around with a gun doesn’t equal safety. There are too many variables in real life to simply say, yes, if that guy had a gun those people would still be alive.

          Finally, the constitutional scholars in here need to chill out. There’s always going to be a debate over amendments and a push/pull regarding the law. Telling someone exactly what the amendment means when they are saying we need to examine this is like saying you know everything all the time and we should do what you say immediately. Well, there’s a reason we have a court system to interpret the laws and arguments between nine justices usually take months to resolve. So, you don’t really know what you’re talking about when it comes to a ‘well regulated militia”. For all you know that could mean the police.

          The police have guns, are a group of people, and they could defend a town or locality against a federal government hell bent on control.

          What about rocket launchers? The government has tanks, helicopters, and drones, wouldn’t you want a RPG to protect yourself against them? And what about a nuclear weapon? Where should we draw the line as to what someone can own? There is obviously a disconnect between the founding fathers in 1776 and now. There is no way they could possibly imagine we would have guns that can shoot tens if not hundreds of bullets. There’s a reason laws are called “amendments” not, “laws that can never be changed.” There very purpose is that they can be

          The argument isn’t as simple as you make it. Welcome to a grey world.

        • ben allen: Well, first I’d like to congratulate you, as I believe you managed to hit every major Citizen Disarmament Movement argument in your two or three comments here. That’s a special skill.

          “I wouldn’t want a teacher with a gun shooting down a hallway at a shooter with innocent people around, that’s a job for a trained professional.”

          A trained professional who might be 10 minutes away. I’m not too concerned about the teacher “shooting down a hallway,” I’m more concerned with bad-breath distance.

          “Even police hit innocent bystanders all the time.”

          And are held harmless for it, all the time. I think that the knowledge that I could be held civilly or criminally liable would make me more likely to to control my shots than the average cop. Of course, I’ve never been in that situation, so I don’t know for sure.

          “So, you don’t really know what you’re talking about when it comes to a ‘well regulated militia’. For all you know that could mean the police.”

          Except the place from which we’re speaking is based on, as others have pointed out, how the courts have interpreted that phrase. And they have unequivocally said it does not mean the police. As others here and elsewhere have pointed out, in the language of the day, “well regulated” meant properly equipped and trained. It had nothing to do with being constrained by law.

          “The police have guns, are a group of people, and they could defend a town or locality against a federal government hell bent on control.”

          The police, specifically the chiefs from whom all the other officers take their orders, are political appointees who do exactly what they’re told. If they don’t, they’re out of a job. If the mayor or city commission decided to side with the “federal government hell bent on control,” the police chief would do what they said, or they’d find someone who would.

          Rocket launchers, nuclear weapons, etc., and “where do you draw the line?”

          There is a distinction between arms and ordnance, or if you prefer, discriminate vs. indiscriminate weapons, and that’s where most reasonable people who aren’t trying to make fantastical comparisons draw the line. The “arms” that the 2A refers to would best be described as the individual weapon of the common soldier, that is, weapons designed for use by a single soldier for discriminate, as opposed to indiscriminate fire. Generally, rifles, pistols, and even some machine guns fit that definition. Nuclear weapons, RPGs, grenades, and the like do not. The individual weapon of the common soldier at the time of the Constitution’s writing was the musket. In the Civil War we’d moved up to the Henry Repeater. In WWII, it was the M1 Garand/Carbine, M1903 Springfield, M1917 Enfield, and others. Now the individual weapon of the common soldier is the M16/M4. The civilian version of that weapon is the AR-15, with the removal of the fully automatic and/or burst fire features. If you get real technical about it, we shouldn’t be keeping and bearing the AR-15, it should be the M4, because M4/AR-15 divergence in capability means we’re no longer possessing the individual weapon of the common soldier, but a dumbed down version.

          “There is no way they could possibly imagine we would have guns that can shoot tens if not hundreds of bullets.”

          Wrong. There were “machine gun” type weapons in existence far (i.e. more than 100 years) before the Constitution was written. The idea of multiple firing, whether simultaneous or sequential, was not just invented in the last 100 years or so. Perfected, yes. Invented, hell no.

          “There’s a reason laws are called ‘amendments’ not ‘laws that can never be changed.’ There very purpose is that they can be ‘amended.'”

          Exactly. And the 2A, as written, says “shall not be infringed.” Many if not most of the laws enacted in the last hundred years are “infringements” by any reasonable definition of the word, to say nothing of the bullshit (and ultimately ineffective) laws being proposed and passed now. So if, as you say, they can be “amended,” then fvcking do it! Get your support together, and amend the Constitution to read like you want it to, and quit this patently unconstitutional nibbling around the edges.

          “Shall not be infringed.” It does not say “limited infringement shall be allowed for the good of the people.” It does not say “limited infringement shall be allowed in the case of previously unforeseen scary-looking rifles.” It is a flat one-or-zero statement. It has not been treated that way in the past, and it’s sure not being treated that way now. A little bit here and a little bit there, “for the children,” and pretty soon it will completely unrecognizable, if it’s not already.

      • I don’t know if you are a college student or not. But I am. I am at an old, nice, private university in a massively high crime area. We have homicides within 2 miles of the school, EVERY YEAR. We were locked down last semester because an armed criminal had fled from a crime scene onto campus.

        I am an adult. Legally, I have the rights of an adult. I could join the military and carry a gun for my country, but I am not allowed to carry a gun where I live. If anything happens on my campus, I am completely helpless. Allowing students to carry firearms on campus does not degrade the learning environment any more than allowing a father to carry a gun while in the park with his kids degrades the family environment. All it does is turn us into targets. You would not see Johnny with his Glock, because his Glock would be concealed. However, if lead starts flying through your hallways, then Johnny covering the door with his Glock is going to be a very, very welcome sight.

        Furthermore, you need to do some research on the wording of the constitution. The uses of different clauses was different back then, and I don’t think “well regulated militia” means what you think it means.

        Finally, all evidence shows that school shooters do not feel the need to take hostages. People take hostages when they want to get out of a bad situation. School shooters go into the situation knowing that they are going to die. They don’t take hostages, they just pull the trigger.

        • No, I wouldn’t want Johnny with a glock shooting down the hall. Especially if my friend was running down the hall next to the shooter…

          I don’t know Johnny. Does Johnny have perfect eyesight and perfect aim?

          What if noone knows what the shooter looks like?What if its a fake gun, and people think it’s real, and there’s a lockdown and Johnny with a glock sees this fake gun, thinking it’s real, and shoots the person?

          Life isn’t so simple.

        • This reply is for Matt in fl and Ben. Matt: that was a beautiful dissection of what he said and you killed it. Ben on the other hand: what does it matter about Johnny’s eyesight? It’s better he’s there regardless. The example or the Portland, OR mall comes to mind. The shooter killed himself when a ccw holder drew on him. About the fake gun scenario, then the asshole gets what he has coming to him for pulling a stunt like that.

      • “The amendment says a “well regulated militia”. We need to understand these words and what they mean.”

        From District of Columbia v. Heller

        The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law § 585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 793, 814-821 (1998).

        Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause

        In this ruling the supreme court picked this bird clean. They laid out what the 2A means and it doesn’t mean hunting.

        • You’re right it has nothing to do with hunting.

          It means ‘well regulated’. Not just regulated, but “well”.

          It’s not like this is rocket science. Any human being with common sense reads the words “well regulated” understands that there will be regulations that inevitably will be unhappy for some that want no regulations whatsoever and will be unhappy for others that want no guns at all, but the majority (which rules) understands the compromise.

          The world is a grey place which requires civil, respectful conversation and an understanding of compromise when both parties disagree.

          Have a nice day folks!

        • ben allen: I covered this above, but I’m going to repeat it, because it reveals a fundamental error you’re making, and I want to educate you so you don’t continue to demonstrate your ignorance. Now, my parents taught me that everyone has opinions, and they’re all valid. My life experience has shown me that’s a good point to start from, but sometimes people are just completely wrong, and this is one of those cases.

          This document was written almost 225 years ago, and words meant different things then. When it was written, “well regulated” meant “properly equipped and trained.” It did not have anything to do with laws. It did not mean strictly controlled. And this phrase does not have anything to do with guns, that’s covered in the third and fourth clauses of the sentence. This usage has fallen out of favor, and would be phrased differently if written today, but in 1791, “well regulated” meant “properly equipped and trained.”

          It’s easy to see the mistake when you read those two words together with one that immediately follows them: “well regulated militia.” Now, that still does not mean it was referring to a strictly controlled military group, or one constrained by a bunch of laws. In the language of the day, militia referred to every able-bodied male between the ages of 16 and 45 (those ages may be off just a bit, but you get the idea). It was not a persistent and ongoing military force; we didn’t have that then. In a time of strife, the militia would be called up, and the aristocratic (read rich, connected, etc.) class and a few career officers would form the officer corps, while the militia would show up with their pappy’s rifle to fill out the ranks. To ensure that those men, when they showed up, would have the tools necessary to do their jobs, the 2A says that those tools cannot be taken away from them. After the conflict, they are released to return to their homes, with their pappy’s rifle in tow, for the next time they (and it) are needed.

          A well regulated militia (A properly trained and equipped force of citizen soldiers), being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people (not the army, not the police, not the state, the people (read elsewhere in this document and other ones contemporaneous to it to mean “individual citizens”) ) to keep and bear arms (to own weapons and carry them as necessary) shall not be infringed (infringed -v- Acted so as to limit or undermine).

          I think that about covers it.

      • Ben you seem to be willing to engage in the debate but I have two issues with your style :
        1. mis-understanding or mis-stating the facts.
        For example the Colombine armed security engaged the shooter at a distwnce andcalled for backup while tending to sytudents who had escaped. That was IAW tactics then. Since then LEO train to engage immediately. So having armed school resource officers and trained staff on site (remember the HS principal who retrieved his handgun from his car and confronted a shooter successfully?)

      • Like I said they picked this bird clean. Here just a part of how they interpret the “a well regulated militia” prefatory clause.
        “We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.”
        It goes on to say
        “It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. Justice BREYER’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 2841, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself.”
        This interpretation wasn’t written long ago in history. It was written in 2008 by people who are still alive. They took the time to break down each word of the 2A. It’s worth a read if you really want to get a clear understanding of it.
        Ben, Just so you understand where I come from I do not want to be part of the “a well regulated militia“ just so I can be label part of a “terrorist group” by my government. Just the same as you don’t want to be required to be part of a newspaper where using your first amendment by posting to a blog. I hope this help all involved to get back to a common sense understanding of the 2A and why the founders made it number 2 on the list and not at the bottom as number 10 in 1791.

      • Ben allen IF you know how to read, the second amendment reads. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. If you notice there are TWO parts to this (the comma). The first specifically references the militia, at the time the militia was every man capable of carrying a firearm and they were to train regularly. The second simply states the PEOPLE not the militia have the right to keep and bear arms.
        If you are going to try to school us on the topic of the constitution at least know what you are talking about.

  2. It’s really, really easy to come away with the impression that a shooting was ACTIVELY BEING ENCOURAGED.

    Do I believe such nonsense? YES.

    • DingDingDingDingDingDingDingDing!

      We have winner!

      The antis would love nothing more than another 20-30 bloody shirts to wave around.

    • I will believe anything about the current administration except that it is patriotic. Obama covet’s Stalin’s power.

  3. Gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL as are gun permit requirements! Gun permits are as constitutional as “worship permits” since BOTH are constitutional rights.


    • “Gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL as are gun permit requirements! Gun permits are as constitutional as “worship permits” since BOTH are constitutional rights.”

      I never thought of it that way. I will reference this concept from here forward for the rest of my life.

      I will ask liberals “Do you have a permit for that Bible!”

    • The problem is with the education of the people. Not only gun laws but any weapon law that restricts use, ownership, construction, function , or carry in anyway is unconstitutional. The laws are basically null in void. That however is the catch they are only enforceable IF juries refuse to support bad laws. They will support bad laws IF they are lead to believe they ARE valid.

      We need to reeducate America and try to dismantle this Anti-American machine that is out to disarm and enslave us. We need to resurrect lady liberty.

      For all that is good the Statue of Liberty is in NY,NY! The place that tried to regulate soda size! What is wrong with these people who can not see yet have the symbols in front of them! Gun rights are not the only battle we are losing!

  4. If you dont have a gun, which would be best of course, and your stuck in a room, maybe something like this would be better than martyrdom…

    -ask everyone for all their pocket change or collect small heavy ouchmakers and distribute it to a couple boys with good arms and courage. Get them on a good sight line to the door, a position of dominance.

    -find the biggest, most courageous kids in the room and place them low and near the entrance.

    -upon entrance of shooter, fling change, or kirk-roll and bum rush depending upon your role.

    Someone might get shot, but the shooter will flinch, even with a helmet, and is going down.

    Whatta you think?

    Also, check out these free moving dry fire drills for your PC screen, cool!

      • I was advocating a coordinated attack with improvised weapons, if that remark was aimed at me. Assuming in this situation that you had NO WAY to get to a gun ASAP. I think most gun people know the easy answer to the overly general question “what is the best response to an active shooter?”

        Bullets, well placed and quick as possible. Isn’t that what everyone calls the police for in such a case?

        But it’s so much more complicated than that, morally, legally, tactically, cartridge-wise, etc…

    • Or…
      Screw the campus and the unicorn fart loving rainbow staring liberals and get behind a dense object in the room for cover and be ready to draw.

      Who is going to prosecute the man who saved countless people by breaking the law and bringing a gun? They might try, but many people will stand behind you when they do.

      • Umm, actually people are frequent;y thrown in jail for an “illegal” DGU. No matter how clear cut the defense was, using a gun even just pointing at the perp without a permit will get you jail time.

        • Perhaps. But how many non-permit holders are performing a DGU on a school shooting? I haven’t heard of any. I would agree with you if it was not a school shooting.

    • There are some YouTube vids of a guy teaching a room full of students exactly that. Books, shoes, whatever you can throw at his head when he walks in, while he had two of the smallest girls in the room tackle him at the knees, just to show how easy it was to take him down that way.

      • Yes, I saw this. I think its solid.

        Anyone know the undocumented distance to draw that all the cops use? 21ft? I was recently trying this from a concealed draw (unloaded capgun BTW) with a friend who does MMA. You need alot of space to draw!

        How close would you need to be to get behind a drawn weapon if he flinched? 10ft maybe?

        I say, if your unarmed and backed in like in a classroom, then attack. Use coordination, speed, surprise and resolve.

        This is all so much BS. I never want to try this for real. The next time I get four friends and a facemask together though, the pocket change will fly…

  5. University lockdown procedures are made for lawsuit avoidance, not genuine security.

    All university students should have a basic awareness of where exits are for any given classroom,and should have a security plan in place in the event of the unthinkable.

    • There was a shooter hoax at the local college. Some of the kids were on about how awesome and caring the counselors were for coming around to all the dorm rooms to see if anyone wanted to talk about it. How easily the younguns are manipulated. They weren’t coming around for the kids, they were out so their bosses wouldn’t get sued over someone wetting their pants.

      • after reading your post, the word… counselor just brings forth images of unicorn fart loving rainbow staring liberals.

        The counselors are there to “talk about it” with the students. Is anyone traumatized? Lets talk.

        I bet no one wants to talk about security or CCW.

        • more or less. Although a fellow was found to be carrying a while back (no, i don’t know how). It’s legal in Va, but against school policy. He was suspended for a day or two and i am very surprised that he wasn’t booted out entirely. But then again, he’s on good terms with and does some smithing for campus PD.

  6. I apologize this post is entirely off topic.

    Fox News is reporting that the Toomy backstabbing includes national ccw reciprocate. Can anyone confirm this?

    • I have no idea – but I just dumped this in Toomy’s inbox under the section of his website called “had enough red tape and overegulation?”

      “I have had enough of Mr. Pat Toomy stabbing his own state, which he supposedly represents, in the back by dealing and negotiating with gun grabbing legislators. I have had enough red tape and overregulation in gun control. There are many different people in the US and just because you can pass a law doesn’t mean you should. This is a cause best left to the states or even smaller – to the cities. No one needs a permit to practice their religion (1st amendment) but many places now require permits for their 2nd amendment rights. It is a right – we shouldn’t have to ask permission.”

  7. 1) FOIA all of the campus police and admin records
    2) Cross check to the description above
    3) Prepare written statement indicating and corroborating timeline above – name names, incl. the chilling professor
    4) Submit to Fox News and copy all members of the Senate
    5) Hold press conference
    6) Demand resignation of school president and head of police force
    7) pop some popcorn and enjoy the show

  8. The girl who screamed that she heard someone yell that they had a gun was interviewed by a reporter, and she was positive that she heard the word gun. One of the students had the entire incident on audio tape and you can clearly hear the man yell “I’m a good guy, let me in.” They also had 5 other dopes admit that they heard him say gun. This guys lucky (if they ever find him) they have a tape and that no gun is ever mentioned. These idiots would have convicted this guy on the word of some fools who don’t know the difference between guy and gun. The URI cops are lucky they didn’t find an armed gunperson because they would have been screwed because they aren’t allowed to carry. One top dope at URI said that guns are scary and that the police “only” took ten long minutes to arrive. I’ll never understand these fools.

  9. We recently had active shooter training at our local college, also a gun-free zone.

    There are signs posted in every classroom with details about what do do in different emergency situations.

    As at URI above, faculty and students are told to hunker down in the classroom until officially told to leave, and to lock and barricade the doors.

    The problem with the doors is they ALL open outward (making them difficult to barricade) , and faculty do NOT have keys to the classroom doors (other than labs and security areas).

    The campus police chief said that he was opposed to the bill going through the statehouse in Austin that would allow those with a CHL to carry concealed on campus. he said that his small police force was trained to engage any armed threat. The problem is that if faculty, staff, and students had a CHL, the officers may hesitate to shoot which would be dangerous to the officers’ safety. If they shoot too fast, they may kill or wound innocent faculty, staff, or students. Better that only the police are armed. He seemed blissfully unaware that we are in a victim rich environment, legally deprived of our basic right of self defense.

    If the CHL holders were armed, any incident would likely be brought to a close much faster.

    Why would a college campus with armed CHL holders be anny different than a shopping mall with CHL holders?

    • Well,

      What the good ole police chief isn’t grasping (or doesn’t want to grasp) is that by the time the police get there – what was going to happen has already happened. They are not going to be shooting at CCW’s, they are going to be pulling the tape around the scene, taking photos, and then mopping up the blood of another innocent person deprived of their right to be armed.

      The chief didn’t want to admit that unless by chance a cop is very close by at that moment, they are basically useless (from the victim’s perspective).

      And another note, if students with CCW’s have the idiocy (or craziness) to pull a gun on a teacher for a bad grade or whatever the reason, then they deserve whats coming. We need to filter their type out of civilization anyways.

  10. My College doesn’t play around with stuff like that. The campus police all have tricked out AR-15s in there cruisers as well as shotguns and sidearms. Last December Graduation there was a bomb threat and the gym was evacuated extremely fast and it was apparent that every city police officer was on campus not to mention a State Trooper or two. That is what I would call an admirable response.

    • Agreed.

      But as a joke – meanwhile, at the local bank branch, and since all the police are located at the campus on the other side of town… haha.

  11. If a shooting had happened, guess who would be blamed. Not the incompetent university. Nope! It’s the NRA’S fault!

  12. Horrific tale. . . truly chilling. To be disarmed by rule of law, then subjected to inadequate defense is the stuff of nightmares. I think we’re all growing used to this sort of thing, numb. I wont sleep tonight I think though. I’m simply too enraged and too upset by this. . .

    I asked my wife if we ought not to train K-whatever students to stack up on opposite sides of the door out of the direct line of fire and then to attack the shooter coming through it with what they have; perhaps pencils and heavy objects stuffed into socks as bludgeons. She remarked that this would ensure some causalities, with which I agree. However I persisted that this, with 20 or 30 students and a teacher was apt to incapacitate or kill an attacker before he was able to disengage or kill them all so long as they remained engaged and continued attacking regardless of losses. My wife repeated that it was too much horror to contemplate such a thing, and that the training required to execute such a ‘bayonet’ charge was just beyond the pale, especially for the younger children. I pointed out that it was better than the current plan of hunkering in place and providing discreet and immobile groups of passive targets. She thought on this and said we should instead arm the teachers (and students where they are adults). It’s a much finer solution than sacrificing people in bayonet charges, or the shock of teaching them to accomplish the same en masse. I agree, while I still like the improvised bayonet charge better than the ‘sit and wait to be shot’ approach, it seems less traumatic and more effective to allow arms everywhere there are responsible people.

  13. “… our president is saying our school acted admirably and exemplary, doing everything by the book …”

    That statement is totally correct because evil does not exist in the Progressive world of rainbows and unicorns. And even if it might exist, everyone is supposed to ignore it.

    More importantly, why does anyone (aside from young children, disabled, or elderly) depend on others for their personal security? If I were that student, I would acquire a semi-auto handgun and keep it discreetly in my backpack. Keep the chamber empty so it cannot possibly go “bang” by itself. And then wrap it up with a scarf or something so that no one can see it even if the backpack is open. And never, ever touch it unless there is an active shooter moving from classroom to classroom and you can hear the gunshots. Oh, and never, ever, ever, ever tell anyone that you have it in your backpack.

    If you simply cannot bring yourself to do what I described above, at least keep a can of wasp spray or bear spray capable of shooting 20+ feet in your backpack. Again, wrap it up so that no one can see it even if your backpack is open. And as above never, ever, ever tell anyone it is in there. Bonus: wasp spray is basically charcoal starter fluid under pressure and makes a dandy short range improvised flame thrower. (Make sure to keep a butane cigarette lighter with the can of wasp spray if you want this additional option … and practice with one can in a remote location before carrying!)

    • As someone who was once convicted of a felony for carrying a concealed firearm unlawfully, who went to prison, sent all their guns off to relatives, an then languished under parole. . . who served there time while the very crime there were convicted of (carrying concealed in a bar) was legalized, and who knows what it is to fight the system even after an expungement of the court who convicted them. . . who cannot gain employment and to this day though legal to do so considers the very real threat of arrest on an outdated and superseded record; I can only say: follow your own advice to the state penitentiary. Please though, don’t suggest someone else do it!

      • I am sorry to hear about your experience Ardent. Assuming you were not carrying to harm anyone, this highlights the problems with our current state of affairs.

        There certainly is risk to carrying a handgun wrapped up in your backpack. There is also risk to not having a firearm available. Each person has to evaluate their unique situation and choose wisely.

        I also hope you noticed my emphasis on being discrete. That should all but eliminate any risk of arrest. And if a student actually used a handgun to stop a spree killer, it is better to be alive and be an ex-convict than to be dead. One last piece of advice: stay out of bars and nightclubs if you are carrying concealed in a state that criminalizes it.

  14. For lockdown, a public high school teacher I know has to herd her students across the hall to another classroom. Why? Because her classroom doesn’t have a lock. Of course, “A lock for every classroom” wasn’t a preexisting policy goal of any political group in the US.

  15. I’ll repeat that: THE DOOR WAS UNLOCKED DURING THE LOCKDOWN. The professor was sitting in a chair in front of a glass door, just hanging out.

    I put the relevant part in bold. You have glass – freaking – doors in your school. What do you think that will do to stop someone who wants to shoot people? NOTHING. They will simply follow Hans Gruber’s advice and shoot the glass. Locking a glass door to keep out a shooter is like putting on sunscreen to protect you from an erupting volcano.

    • My kids school has the glass doors as well.Locking will only slow a killer down.They don’t even need a gun to get past that locked glass door.Yet, the golden rule of my child’s school is :lock the door,stay out of sight,and the teacher will call for help.

      We should be passing laws that require school staff to take courses in dealing with potential threats.Most people freeze in place,or they run away.Those who are charged with the responsibility of our childrens lives need to be doing better.Staff that blow off these potential threat situations(like the above one did) should be fired.

  16. You complain about 30 minutes free time for the murderer to kill? Here in Norway the murderer had 4 HOURS, but I agree police response times are horrible + the fact that most police aren’t the best shots.

  17. Connor, you need to send that in a letter to the OpEd desk at several news papers…maybe, just may be it will get picked up by one or two…or best case, go viral….

  18. April 5th was a Friday over here in Texas, I don’t know what day it was for you in Rhode Island, a Thursday apparently.

  19. Connor, that was a well-written piece covering your experience. Sorry to learn about what you went through and have to endure. Obama, and the others like him, couldn’t care less about how many of us get killed as long as he gets the new world order that he wants.

  20. ben allen, as far as I’m concerned being able, willing and prepared to defend your family, friends and nation is a duty of every able bodied citizen. If you can’t, you get a pass, but if you won’t, you have no right to be here, you’re a parasite.
    Dependence on government for personal defense is the ultimate surrender of self to the state. It is an invitation to tyranny that few governments will resist, and if you cannot see the onset of tyranny at this moment and not be alarmed you are a fool.

  21. Question for the tactically minded – would it best for an armed citizen to barricade themselves as best possible and defend that position rather than roaming halls creating confusion for the police? Lock down makes sense, cowering unprotected does not.

  22. I have come to the conclusion that liberal gun grabbers LOVE mass shootings. It gives them ammunition to grab guns and people who have never been taught to critically think about it. If you look at chicago, Washington. New York where the gun laws are most prohibitive yet crime with guns is out of control. The laws on the books are NOT being enforced. Little by little, first with registration, and then with confiscation. The more people die its another nail in the coffin of freedom and liberty’s for the law abiding. Remember, more people have been killed by their own gov’ts in the 20th century than all wars in the history of mankind. The 1st thing they did was confiscate the peoples means of self defense

  23. I’m glad you posted this story. This is an issue around the country where college students can make a difference by being concerned about their safety. Currently I am an officer for my university’s chapter of students for concealed carry on campus. We have recently lobbied at the Texas legislator where house bill 972 (giving the right to university staff and students to conceal carry on campus with a valid concealed handgun license) has just recently been accepted in the committees and is about to be voted on by the house. Take your activism to your campus and to the state. Students for concealed carry on campus is a national organization and will help you start a new chapter. Good Luck!

Comments are closed.