• David Schonfeld (CAS’83, MED’83)

    David Schonfeld (CAS’83, MED’83) Profile

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English.

There are 9 comments on POV: After Sandy Hook’s Wake-Up Call, Did We Hit the Snooze Button?

  1. No one is choosing not to think about Sandy Hook. The left chose to use it as an excuse to attack the second amendment which in turn alienated the right. The bipartisan solution which is the real common sense solution is obvious but we need to accept the fact that any talk about restricting the second amendment rights of people who love life and desire to protect themselves from lunatics is not an option that can even be on the table. The solution begins with a serious look at the mental health problem. Many people who have used a gun for the wrong reason have also had mental health issues that were not being adequately treated. Throwing drugs (that when improperly used or prescribed can actually increase suicidal ideations) at people and turning them loose on the street is obviously not working. Second, as the gun free zone has proven to be a deranged person’s venue of choice it needs to be abolished (sorry anti gun people but the statistics prove this is a failed policy). Third, we need ensure more people can shoot back when an armed assailant comes calling which means making sure more not less people are properly trained to use a firearm. Very few gun owners object to taking course that improve their skills. Taxes that pay for free clinics to train gun in owners and a nonconfrontational ad campaign promoting gun safety is a fine place to start; talk about laws forcing people to lock up guns just serve to alienate gun owners. If any one of the teachers Lanza had confronted that day had been able to shoot back the carnage could have been averted.

    There was a time in this country when firearms could be bought by anyone (even through the US mail) without a background check. In those days people with mental health issues where locked up rather than running loose on the street. Today we threaten to lock up people for failing to renew a gun license (a victimless crime according to the MA SJC) and turn mental patients loose on the streets. Sadly in our efforts to protect the rights of people with mental health issues we have created a situation that requires laws infringing on the rights of the rest of us. The system was turned upside down by those with good intentions but this has clearly not worked. Time to end the failed feel good policies and restore order to the system.

    1. While I generally agree that most of the stricter gun laws proposed by the left go far over the line when it comes to infringing upon the second amendment, I do believe in tougher background checks, and your comment just made the case for it. Guns should not be purchased through the mail without a background check, and not every person with a mental health issue should or can be locked up.

      1. There is no historical data to support the basis for your argument. The FBI statistics suggest that background checks have done nothing to reduce violent crime. In fact, on the contrary crime when up after 1968 when people stopped being able to purchase guns through the mail. Vermont which allows concealed carry without a permit has the second lowest crime rate in the nation lending further support to this argument. None of the people who committed the three most obscene mass murders were prevented from buying guns due to background checks.

        Finally we are talking about a fundamental right here as ruled by the SCOTUS. Name one other right that requires a background check before it can be exercised? Read Clarence Thomas dissenting argument in the McDonald decision wherein he cites all the references to racism that gave rise to the current background check system and why the second amendment like all other fundamental rights should be protected by the privileges and immunities clause of the fourteenth amendment. If the founders had intended the second amendment to subjected to due process they would have said so.

        There is no case law indicting that states do not have the authority to regulate concealed carry or where a firearm can be legally discharged. No law on the books to date has done anything to stop a criminal from committing a crime. Background checks and gun laws have served only to vilify gun ownership and subject law abiding citizens to violations of their privacy without warrant based on the fundamentally flawed argument that the desire to own a gun is sufficient to make you a suspect and therefore subject to an investigation of your character. Due process is to be reserved for cases wherein there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed it cannot logically be applied before the fact to a fundamental right or that right fails to exist.

  2. Thank you, “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” for so succinctly articulating the deep complexities inherent in effectively stemming violence — gun-based or otherwise — in our communities. After years of implementing anti-gun legislation, much of which has now so thoroughly proven to be ineffective or, in the case of gun-free zones, actually increases the likelihood of attacks and victim counts, it is time to look at the problem as one we have exacerbated with well-meaning but wholly misdirected laws.

    We learned that during the Second World War, neither the German Axis nor Japan ever seriously considered an invasion of the United States. Why? Because the freedom of United States citizens to own and carry firearms, coupled with Americans’ high regard for their property rights and determination to protect their way of life, was so well-known and feared that any attempt at on-the-ground invasion was regarded as suicidal.

    We live in times that are characterized by a pervasive culture of violence. We can blame Hollywood, the makers of video games, the media, the alienation of some of the mentally ill who will seek to be recognized by acts of violence, or our human propensity to forget numbing tragedy with the passage of time. Guns are an easy target, because they are inanimate and it’s easier than committing to elect leaders who will find real solutions to the pervasive adoration and glorification of violence that has been allowed to root itself so deeply in our society.

    Dr. Schonfield has made an important contribution to the discussion of what we still need to learn from and do after Sandy Hook.

    1. “After years of implementing anti-gun legislation, much of which has now so thoroughly proven to be ineffective or, in the case of gun-free zones, actually increases the likelihood of attacks and victim counts, it is time to look at the problem as one we have exacerbated with well-meaning but wholly misdirected laws.”

      Citation needed please.

  3. Another shooting in a gun free zone today in Colorado of all places where they just passed numerous new gun control laws in response to Sandy Hock. The governor must be so proud of the effectiveness of these new laws.

    1. He was able to buy a shotgun… surely you aren’t blaming this on the lack of availability of guns when the problem was the availability of guns? Oh wait you are, continue living in your own little world.

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *