• Art Jahnke

    Senior Contributing Editor

    Art Janke

    Art Jahnke began his career at the Real Paper, a Boston area alternative weekly. He has worked as a writer and editor at Boston Magazine, web editorial director at CXO Media, and executive editor in Marketing & Communications at Boston University, where his work was honored with many awards. 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. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 16 comments on University Will Not Divest from Firearms Manufacturers

  1. 20 children and 6 teachers shot dead and an industry bent on manipulating the democratic process by buying politicians and targeting minority communities isn’t a high enough bar?

    1. Firearms manufacturers have nothing to do with the commission of a crime by someone using their product; by your logic, we should hold electricity providers responsible for people being electrocuted, or car manufacturers for hit-and-runs, or cooking knife manufacturers for people using their knives to hurt other people, or…

      As for them “targeting minority communities”: please show me one instance in recent history where going manufacturers have their sights on “minorities.”

        1. I am astonished by the ignorance and blatant racism those “progressive” articles display. Just because a woman or an African-American are on an NRA talk show, that means they’re just pawns for the big, mean white machine that is the gun industry? You never thought to stop and think that they’re people too, and maybe they are there on their own accord, because they enjoy firearms and the freedom to own and use them? God forbid a minority owns a gun and contributes to the NRA, they must be a part of some hidden agenda to proliferate guns to poor people. Come on, not all of us firearms owners fit your deluded stereotypes. America is a diverse place, and so are gun owners and gun rights activists.

      1. Daniel,

        After Emancipation, with the right of all citizens to own and bear firearms now including those previously excluded, blacks were legally entitled to defend themselves, their families, and their property. In the past they had not.

        Are you suggesting that targeted advertising to black audiences is bad because they can’t manage gun ownership and are intrinsically dangerous when armed? That was the pre-Emancipation argument against firearm ownership for blacks: they can’t be trusted and are too ignorant to use a gun responsibly.

        Responsible gun owners comply with purchase and registration laws, and respect the harm that firearms can do.

      1. Can we established that neither cars or knives are manufactured for the purpose of being used as weapons? Yes, accidents happen on the road or with electric appliances. Yes I can use a fork or a knife in my kitchen to attack someone. However, shooting someone with a gun is not done by accident! Guns are not utility tools. They have a single purpose: to kill. I’m ashamed to be an alumnus of this institution. Companies that profit on selling weapons have blood in their hands.

        1. 作为

          Unfortunately, there are people who do not wish to follow the law and abuse guns by firing them at other people solely with the intent to kill them. However, this still does not mean the purpose of the gun is to kill. The gun is simply the tool used by a person who has the intent to kill. You may say that the person would not have killed if he/she did not have the gun, but if someone has it in their mind that they are going to kill someone, the lack of a gun will not stop them. They will use a knife, an iron bar, their hands, or really anything sharp or large enough to cause death.
          Sadly, in recent years, there has been a rise in the number of mass murders committed using guns. I agree that this is a terrible thing that I wish had never happened, but don’t blame the gun for the person’s intent. People are evil, not guns.

  2. Why the call to divest only from manufacturers making small arms for lawful civilian use? Surely all the products of large military contractors (drones anyone?) cause far more harm and social ill in this world. Is it not hypocritical to endorse civilian disarmament but then be tacitly pro war by omission. Blood money is still blood money is it not?

  3. […] politics, a win for their side isn’t guaranteed. The Boston University Board of Trustees recently rejected a proposal to divest from civilian market firearms manufacturers pushed by BU’s own Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investing […]

  4. Imagine a scale that might rank public policy issues by their urgency and general importance to society at large.

    At the high end of that scale would, most likely, be policies that actually protect the lives of society’s residents and, thereby, also, reduce the fear that people have that their lives are endangered–outcomes which both enlarge freedom and liberty.

    Gun laws have been shown to reduce gun deaths and to reduce fear in communities where guns were once rampant. More guns in communities increase both gun deaths and fear, both of which lead, cyclically, to more guns being purchased for ostensible ‘protection.’

    We can start to break this cycle by making gun manufacturing less profitable. Withdrawing institutional investments has been shown to be an effective pressure point on specific industries–most recently with the fossil fuel industry. It would likely be the same with the gun industry.

    We all cast votes with our dollars, and not just with balIot on election day. I, therefore, encourage BU to cast its investment ballot against the manufacturing of firearms for the civilian market. This is a singularly important issue for the safety and sense of security of our citizenry.

    A decision to disinvest by the Board does not need to close off further debate or research on this issue within the community. Academic freedom need not to be endangered in preserving the place of a university to speak out forcefully and decisively on issues of civic import. Let that decision be made and the discussion, as desired, to continue. Both can, and should be allowed to, happen.

Post a comment.

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