Gun control advocates wasted no time exploiting tragedy for political gain. Before investigators even determined what type of firearm was used or how it was obtained, former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords rushed to demand congressional action following the December 13, 2025 shooting at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. The attack left two students dead and nine others injured, but Giffords issued her call for restrictions while critical facts remained unknown.
The shooting occurred around 4:00 p.m. inside the Barus and Holley building, which houses the School of Engineering and Physics Department, while students took final exams. Two Brown University students, Ella Cook and Mukhammad Aziz Umurzokov, lost their lives in the attack. Eight victims suffered gunshot wounds and were hospitalized at Rhode Island Hospital, with one additional person injured by a fragment.
Officials held a press conference at 6:30 p.m. to report they did not know what type of firearm was used and did not have a suspect in custody. They said only that they were seeking a male “dressed in black.” Between the shooting and the press conference, when even fewer details were known, Giffords used an X post to urge Congress to act.
“My heart breaks for Brown University,” Giffords wrote. “Students should only have to worry about studying for finals right now, not hiding from gunfire. Guns are the leading cause of death for young people in America — this is a five alarm fire and our leaders in Washington have ignored it for too long. Americans are tired of waiting around for Congress to decide that protecting kids matters.”
Giffords did not specify what action she wanted Congress to take. No one knew what kind of gun was used or how the attacker acquired it. The motivation remained unknown, as did the attacker’s age, religion, and race or ethnicity. Officials at the 6:30 p.m. press conference did not even confirm whether those killed were students at the school.
This reflexive rush to politicize tragedy before facts emerge reveals the gun control playbook. Advocates exploit public emotion while details remain murky, hoping to push restrictive legislation before rational analysis can occur. They present sweeping federal mandates as solutions without waiting to understand whether existing laws failed or whether the proposed restrictions would have prevented the specific incident.
Sen. Chuck Schumer joined the chorus calling for more gun control in response to the handgun attack. Yet Schumer conspicuously failed to mention a critical detail about Brown University. The campus operates as a gun free zone.
Brown University maintains strict weapons policies that prohibit firearms on campus. The policy extends so far as to prevent even concealed carry permit holders from being armed on campus for self-defense. Law-abiding citizens who undergo background checks, complete training, and obtain permits sanctioned by the state cannot exercise their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves at Brown.
This inconvenient fact undermines the gun control narrative. The attacker ignored Brown’s gun free zone policy, just as criminals consistently ignore gun control laws. Meanwhile, potential victims who might have defended themselves and others were disarmed by university policy. The shooting occurred in a space where only the attacker had a firearm, creating a target rich environment where defenseless students could not fight back.
Gun-free zones create the illusion of safety while guaranteeing vulnerability. They tell criminals that victims will be unarmed and unable to resist. They transform schools, universities, and public spaces into soft targets where mass casualty attacks can proceed unimpeded until police arrive. Brown University’s weapons policy did not stop Saturday’s attack. It ensured that no one could stop the attacker until law enforcement responded.
Giffords and Schumer demand that Congress “do something” without acknowledging that existing restrictions failed to prevent this tragedy. They ignore that Brown University already implemented the gun-free zone policies they champion. They refuse to consider that disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them defenseless against armed criminals who ignore prohibitions.
The Second Amendment exists precisely because Americans have the right to defend themselves. Gun control advocates exploit every tragedy to chip away at that right, proposing restrictions that burden the law-abiding while doing nothing to stop criminals. Saturday’s shooting at Brown University demonstrates once again that gun free zones fail to protect anyone. They only ensure that victims remain defenseless when evil strikes.
About José Niño
José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.
