Professor Amy Bishop, a neurobiologist who holds a doctorate in genetics from Harvard University, moved her four children and husband from Massachusetts to Alabama for one major reason: the prospect of tenure at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). Recently though the University denied her a tenured faculty position, and she reacted in a lethal way according to various news accounts. On Friday, February 12, the Wall Street Journal reported, Bishop “opened fire during a meeting of teaching staff at the University of Alabama's Huntsville campus… killing three faculty members and wounding three others.”

According to news reports, the assistant professor of biological sciences apparently used a 9 MM pistol in the shooting. Apparently, Bishop had concluded teaching a class before attending the meeting at 4 p.m. in the university's new Shelby Center, a $60-million science and technology facility with labs, classrooms, and two auditoriums. According to some reports, she may have sat quietly for roughly 30 minutes before she pulled out her weapon and fired at her unarmed victims.

Bishop was apprehended outside the building by authorities without incident. Getting into a police car later that day, a calm Bishop claimed: “It didn't happen. There's no way.... They are still alive.” Currently, Bishop is charged with capital murder while more charges are pending.

Huntsville police spokesman Sgt. Mark Roberts did tell the media that Bishop did not have a permit for the pistol that was retrieved at the scene. Students and colleagues described Bishop as “intelligent” but also quite “strange” and “intense.”

The Los Angeles Times reported that Bishop and her family “were outspoken Northeastern liberals whose political yard signs stood out a little on their suburban lot facing a cul-de-sac called Scarlett O'Hara Circle.”

The developing story continued to take strange turns as news reports revealed that Bishop was involved in the shooting death of her brother in 1986 which was later ruled accidental. According to the current police chief, Bishop’s mother was a public official who sat on a police personnel committee with the implication being that may have had something to do with the case being ruled accidental. Authorities are now planning to review the records of the incident in light of the recent events. In another strange development in the case, it was reported that Bishop and her husband were also suspects in an attempted mail bombing of a Harvard Professor in 1993.

The University of Alabama-Huntsville is a gun-free school zone, and it is likely that officials will review the tragic incident and determine what measures could make the school safer. Bishop’s use of an unregistered pistol in a gun-free zone shows that those who are willing to ruthlessly murder don’t abide by gun-control laws — including gun-free zones that ensure that the intended law-abiding victims will be unarmed and defenseless. NBC News reports that “Gina Hammond, a UAH student, told [the news] that she lobbied the University of Alabama trustees to allow students with gun permits to carry their weapons on campus. She was turned down."

"I'm scared to go back to school… However, if they were to allow me to carry my pistol on campus, I would not be as scared... I'm sorry that nobody in that room had a pistol to save at least one person's life," Hammond said.

Photo of Amy Bishop: AP Images

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (19)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Bonnie said:

She was a Northeastern liberal??? You mean to say that the shooter wasn't a Southern redneck male holding a Bible and a gun? The MSM won't know how to handle this!

February 15, 2010

Lee Gonzales said:

Way to go, Bonnie The people that she is accused of gunning down one must not forget shouldn't have to pay with their lives due to someone's anger. She is still to be considered innocent until a court of law proves otherwise. But you are right, Bonnie, it is a strange twist of fate that a "liberal" would be "packin." That is usually reserved for "red necks" who subscribe to field and Stream magazine and do re-enactments of the Shoot out at the Ok Corral. Those are the ones that the media caricatures as the mean vendictive types.

February 15, 2010

Flu-Bird said:

Gun free fool zone If this has proven anything its proven these GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONES are a joke becuase fanatics and crinimals will always have access to guns but as always with stupid liberal pinheads they,ll blame the gun the gun makers and the NRA as these ignorant liberals always do

February 16, 2010

DDS -- NRA Life Member said:

We Don't Need To Cho You No Steenking Stereotype It's going to take some serious spin for the usual suspects to portray this one as the work of an angry racist middle aged white guy.

February 16, 2010

Jimmy said:

Why Why do her political beliefs matter in this article? That paragraph sticks out like a sore thumb...

February 16, 2010

CLARENCE LEE CLINE said:

... This is just another tragic event enabled, aided and abetted by laws that are supposed to protect. When will the people wake up and smell the coffee??? Your lawmakers and you who elect them are wrong. There is absolutely no excuse for being so very wrong. the facts are there. for well documented facts on many myths about guns google 'Gun Facts 5.1'. this is a free publication with unimpeachable proofs. Also to better understand what is happining today google 'On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs by Dave Grossman'. this is also a free publication. This given by a sheepdog who loves his sheep.

February 16, 2010

CLARENCE LEE CLINE said:

... Think my sheep. Do not emote, THINK! There is a big difference. Love you.

February 16, 2010

ron2112 said:

massicure at the "GUN FREE ZONE" Well people another tragidy due to POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. When are we going to learn that the government can't fix anything only break it youv'e heard the old saying about the government, IF IT AINT BROKE,FIX IT UNTELL IT IS. This P.C. crapp has to come to an end, plain and simpple. Lets get back to the consitution and bill of rights the bill of RIGHTS you know that document that has the 2nd Amendment.

February 16, 2010 | url

Lee Gonzales said:

Cline declines to be specific Do you get on the phone to the talking heads at MSNBC, CNN and ABC, NBC and CBS and tell them "Think" don't "emote?" The story above is about a self-professed "liberal" who is accused of shooting down people with a big ol' gun. She (the alleged gun man,oops ,I mean gunperson)does not fit the sterotypical "gun nut" that is portrayed on television by the "main scream" media. She will have her day in court and no one from this site is going to deny the alleged killer her God-given and Bill of Rights guaranteed speedy trial.

February 16, 2010

aj said:

Comments on Professor Shooting I've been reading through the comments posted on this story. I have to admit, it's disappointing. Innocent people have been killed, and the majority of comments on here are nothing more than smug political commentary and mud-slinging. Some sad displays of character.

February 16, 2010

Clint said:

They'll find a way They always do. No matter what the circumstance, the person, or events leading up to the situation. It will get twisted into some great big ordeal and the pin heads that scream for more restrictions and control will be at the ready with their pitchforks and Socialist guidebook. I agree with ron2112, this Political Correctness crap has to be ended. Call it what it is. If someone is offended, get over it. Speak your mind and move along. Flu Bird is also on the right track. The only, I mean ONLY thing a Gun Free Zone does is invite things like this to happen. It is no ones descision to tell me whether or not I can defend myself with any type of resistance. For those that disagree, go ahead and be an easy target. Give up your life without a fight, it's your choice, becasue it is YOUR responsibility to take care of yourslef, no one elses. But like I said, it is YOUR choice.

February 16, 2010

Clint said:

smug political commentary and mud slinging? How can you not discuss the ramifications that have occured because of political descisions derived from those that wish to see you suffer at the hands of criminals? Yes, it is a tragedy that people were murdered. Why she did it is going to be found out (maybe) in court. By means of a speedy trial o be judged by her peers, which is of course guaranteed to her by the Constitution. But here is the stickler. Were those that were senselessly murdered also not guaranteed, by the Constitution, the inherent Right, granted to them by their Creator (Who or Whatever it/they might have been) to have the means and ability to prevent such a tragedy? I ask those that feel it is necessary to deprive us of such a Right, how the Right to a speedy trial, yadda yadda yadda, is fair. Huh? Also, those that think certain "limitations" are only fair? If you want to support a Right, you need to support it to its' full extent or not at all. You can't choose the parts that you like. Maybe this shed a bit of light on your assumption of ones character.

February 16, 2010

Lost freedoms said:

... The nut case liberal "accidentally" shot her brother to death in 1986, the accident took THREE shots, with a SHOTGUN!!!

February 16, 2010

Paul Kyler Jr said:

MORE TO THIS STORY THAN MEETS THE EYE There is more to this story about Dr. Amy Bishop than meets the eye. Go to the website for Prodigy Biosystems...read the press release by the CEO last name REEVES...Dr. Amy Bishop is married to a Michael Anderson..Michael is a highly educated scientist as well. Bishop and Anderson own the patent for a new medical device called InQ -"ink" it is touted to be the new Petrie Dish of the future...it is scheduled to be released as a new product by the company Prodigy this Summer...it appears the University Of Alabama - along with this company Prodigy - and certain government agencies were about to steal this womans scientific work...not providing her TENURE or an on-going job? but profiteering from her and her husbands patent? Sounds like a good reason (and motive) to be pissed off to me...don't believe me? Go to Prodigy Biosystems homepage read the Press Release...then go to the Federal Patent office webpage and search in the Patent Application files for Amy Bishop...you will find the patent properly filed there in 2006 under only 2 names...Amy Bishop and Michael Anderson...BUT according to the Prodigy Biosystem press release the University gave the company "the right" to develope the product...BUT the University was dumping Amy Bishop. Paul Kyler paulkylerjr@yahoo.com

February 16, 2010

Paul Kyler Jr said:

... sorry everyone in my initial post titled "More To This Story Than Meets The Eye" I misnamed Amy Bishops husband...his name is James Anderson....

February 16, 2010

Tionico said:

"gun nut" stereotypes someone above posted this: She is still to be considered innocent until a court of law proves otherwise. But you are right, Bonnie, it is a strange twist of fate that a "liberal" would be "packin." That is usually reserved for "red necks" who subscribe to field and Stream magazine and do re-enactments of the Shoot out at the Ok Corral. Those are the ones that the media caricatures as the mean vendictive types. the trouble is, this is the classic stereotype for "gun totin' 2nd Ammendment activists. Perhaps a very small percentage of gun owners fit this stereotype. The vast majority of us do not. We are normal citizens, Dems, Reps, liberals, conservatives, men, women, young, old, city folk, country folk, outback folk... rich, poor, all sorts. And to tell the lot of us we can't carry our rightfully owned and carried arms simply sentences many to being victims of those who obey neither the law nor signes. Statistics are VERY clear on this fact: EVERYWHERE the right to keep and bear is upheld enjoys a greatly reduced incidence of violent crime. And yet, so many of our elected "representatives" insist we'll ALL be safer if guns are denied our use. This, when the exact opposite is clearly borne out by history. How many more school shootings will it take before enough people say ENOUGH, and either carry is allowed (for the law abiding) or people simply elect to go elsewhere? I will not enter a restaurant or other public facility where everyone is denied their right to protect themselves and those round about them. UNLESS the faciliy has permanently installed the airport syle security screening to detect ALL lethal weapons. This is the ONLY way we can be assured scofflaws are also denied access to lethal force... most of the time.

February 17, 2010

aj said:

RE: smug political commentary and mud-slinging? As much as I was moved by your piety and pretension, I would have to say that, suprisingly no, it did shed any brilliant light of truth on anything.

February 17, 2010

amanda said:

Americans and their "rights" The American gun ownership issue is ridiculous. So many of the commenters on this post are arguing for greater allowances of gun control (that student who is lobbying to be able to bring handguns to a gun-free campus sounds like a complete moron who is drunk on her "rights." This is indeed an unfortunate occurrence, but it in no way equates that more people should be able to own guns and walk around with them. I don't care WHERE your political ideals rest (republican, conservative, democrat, liberal etc) I don't trust ANYONE to be able to walk around with a weapon that is designed to kill. Humans are idiots, no matter how smart you think you are.

February 17, 2010

Benj said:

Why do you guys still even have guns? I'm from England and our government outlawed guns in the early part of the 20th century. At the time I'm sure there were arguments that this would just mean that the criminals could get hold of them but nice people wouldn't be able to. However, after a fairly short period of time, very few people had guns. That means that crimes like this are really unusual in the UK compared to the US. We have far fewer murders than you and we have a very small amount of gun crime. The only people that have guns in the UK are serious organised criminals and the police. Even burglers and muggers don't generally have guns unlike in the US. So take your choice, have the illusion that guns will enable you to defend yourselves (which the evidence suggests they don't) or accept the fact that if you ban them criminals will have them for a while before they get rarer and rarer at which point your murder stats will fall through the floor.

February 26, 2010