Old Dominion University’s campus is officially gun-free, yet that policy did nothing to stop a determined attacker who opened fire on ROTC students with a handgun Thursday. This article looks at what happened, why blanket bans fail when violence arrives, and practical ways universities can actually protect students and staff without naïvely trusting rules to stop criminals.
The shooter targeted ROTC students on campus, using a handgun to unleash harm where policies promised safety. Details are still emerging, but the central fact is ugly and simple: a rule on paper did not stop a person bent on violence. When tragedy hits, the consequences fall on those who follow the rules first and ask questions later.
Gun-free zones assume that people intent on committing violence will respect policy, and that is plainly false. Predators do not check signage before they act, so forbidding lawful carry only handicaps potential defenders. A policy that strips self-defense from trained, responsible individuals tilts the odds toward the attacker.
ROTC students were the target in this attack, and that adds a bitter twist: these are people who train to protect others, yet they were left exposed by a campus rule. Trusted, disciplined members of the community should not be turned into sitting ducks by administrators more concerned with optics than outcomes. If anything, their presence argues for more, not less, sensible means of defense.
<pA change in approach does not mean chaos; it means empowering the responsible and ensuring training and accountability. Allowing concealed, vetted carry for qualified personnel and expanding armed campus security units are practical options worth considering. Republicans argue that law-abiding citizens and trained officers, not policies that only bind the innocent, are the first line of defense.
Mental health and threat assessment must be part of the response, but they cannot be the only tools in the box. Early intervention programs and better reporting protocols can help prevent some incidents, yet they cannot guarantee prevention against a determined attacker in the moment. Real safety mixes prevention, rapid response, and the ability of people on site to act when seconds matter.
University leaders need to be accountable for the choices that affect campus safety, including the decision to maintain strict gun bans. Administrators should face transparent reviews of their security plans and reasoning, and those reviews should include front-line responders and the community’s perspective. Trust in leadership depends on results, not slogans or symbolic measures.
Practical steps should follow immediately: assess choke points, improve lighting and cameras, run realistic active-shooter drills, and fund rapid armed response teams that are integrated with local law enforcement. Invest in training for willing staff and students who meet strict standards, and create clear legal pathways for campuses to choose policies that fit their risk profile. Safety is not one-size-fits-all, and policy must reflect that reality.
At the heart of this debate is a simple legal and moral claim: people have a right to defend themselves, and governments should not make that harder for the law-abiding. The Second Amendment and common-sense safety measures are not mutually exclusive; they can work together when administrators prioritize lives over paperwork. Policymakers should allow local control so campuses can adopt sensible, effective protections.
Victims and witnesses deserve immediate support and long-term care, and the community must push for concrete changes that reduce risk rather than false comfort. Call your elected officials and school boards to demand transparent safety reviews and the option for trained, responsible defensive measures on campus. If institutions insist on policies that leave people vulnerable, those policies should be changed before another attack proves their cost in human lives.
Darnell Thompkins is a Canadian-born American and conservative opinion writer who brings a unique perspective to political and cultural discussions. Passionate about traditional values and individual freedoms, Darnell’s commentary reflects his commitment to fostering meaningful dialogue. When he’s not writing, he enjoys watching hockey and celebrating the sport that connects his Canadian roots with his American journey.