Comments on OSV Daily Take Blog: Tiger Woods, pornography and the loaded gun

Hey sclcs, maybe people are just upset when other ...

2010-01-31T01:25:54.342-05:00

Hey sclcs, maybe people are just upset when other people say that guns are the same as pornography. I'm just glad there are people like palinurus out there who realize how poorly put together and flawed Mr. Shaw's article is and to know what's right.

and to sclcs, preserving my right to protect my fa...

2010-01-30T21:14:45.771-05:00

and to sclcs, preserving my right to protect my family from those whose main interests are something OTHER THAN my security IS a "real" issue. If you prefer to trust that law enforcement will always be there for you if you need them (even though they make no such promise), or if you prefer to believe you will never be threatened, that's your right, but I think you are being smug.

Bravo to all the gun owners! And sorry, Mr Shaw, ...

2010-01-30T14:29:01.988-05:00

Bravo to all the gun owners! And sorry, Mr Shaw, this appeared to me, too, to be a sloppily written, gratuitous shot at gun rights' advocates that backfired, not an innocent or casually-written analogy. I think we all know the difference. And your animus is shown by your rhetorical question re what laws we would favor re gun abuse. For the record, I favor enforcing the laws we have, with rapid, certain punishment of those who commit crimes using guns. If liberals, in and out of the Church, would temper their soft-on-crime, "social justice" rhetoric to include a serious plea for accountability of criminals and the justice of such punishment, maybe liberal legislators would stop using liberal Catholics, in and out of the Church, as cover as they push in the legislatures for silly "root causes" defenses of criminals.

Live and learn - yes! Don't mess with the handgun ...

2009-12-20T00:04:18.167-05:00

Live and learn - yes! Don't mess with the handgun fans. A feisty bunch, they get up in arms.

C'mon, people, save your indignation for the real issues. No one's taking away your guns. You've got that lobby ocked up.

Reply: LETTER TO THE EDITOR I have to say that he ...

2009-12-16T12:54:27.692-05:00

Reply:
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
I have to say that he exactly, and very respectfully and coherently, expresses my own opinion on safety. We need “the good guys” to have guns because laws are clearly not stopping the “insane” or malicious criminals from harming people and carrying weapons.
The points that Loomis brings up are valid and vital. I strongly believe that this issue needs to be brought out and discussed. We can even look right here in Nebraska at the decision faced and resolved at the mall in Omaha after the shooting there.
I hope to complete a concealed carry course myself so that I can be safe and provide safety for others around me.
Senior Music major

Both of these pieces can be found at:
http://dailynebraskan.com

Here are the pieces: __ Simply put, I believe ther...

2009-12-16T12:54:10.844-05:00

Here are the pieces:
__
Simply put, I believe there should be a removal of this “weapon ban,” (at UNL) or at least some amendments.
An average student walking into class with a pistol holstered on his or her hip would definitely instill fear amongst many, probably myself included. So the open carry of firearms is definitely a no-no. How about concealed carry of guns, though?
This is where I think some amendments should be made. Concealed guns are, well, concealed, so no one should know whether or not someone is armed. In turn, there would not be the same fear created that an open-carry firearm owner would create.
In order to legally carry a concealed weapon, one must take a class – which isn’t cheap – and be tested quite extensively to prove their knowledge of their firearm, the rules of concealment and safety practices.
So why exactly am I advocating the allowance of concealed gun carry on campus? The ban of concealment is believed to be a method for protecting the student body from danger, but there are some instances where allowing it could save lives, or at least prevent attempts on people’s lives.
Take the Virginia Tech incident that occurred 2007. People were shot and killed and basically had no form of self-defense except to run. This was, of course, because they were abiding by the school rules of not carrying weapons, while the assailant, Seung-Hui Cho, had no regard for the rules and brought guns on campus anyhow.
The point in mentioning this tragedy is that even though there were weapon-free regulations in place, this did not (and has not historically) stopped an attacker from hurting others.
I had mentioned in a column a couple months ago that criminals often avoid committing crimes in fear that their victims may be armed. This would likely hold true on a campus that allows concealed carry. Any person to said crook’s left or right may be the wrong person to mess with. Women are especially prone to crimes like sexual assault on college campuses, but that might be reduced knowing that she or a bystander may be armed.
Professors who choose to participate in carrying a concealed gun could “advertise” a “safe haven classroom,” duly noting that students were safer in their classrooms, and most attackers would avoid facing classrooms with armed individuals.
Some would probably argue that most “school shooters” are clinically insane, and that they would have no fear going to classes that may be armed. As this is possible, unarmed victims are stuck with little luck for safety until the authorities arrive, and the minutes that pass for them to arrive are often minutes where innocent people become endangered. Under this concealed carry amendment, there would be a heightened chance to end dangerous standoffs more quickly.
In today’s society, there are massive amounts of control and policies that actually restrict safety, even though they are designed to heighten it. In general, many weapon controls often create this reality, as many heists and killings occur in weapon-restricted areas. This is not a coincidence. This is because the average criminal knows these locations are where we are the most vulnerable.
The weapon control rules of campus are designed to keep us more safe. But as they are currently written, they could have the opposite effect.
Josh Loomis is a senior Fisheries and Wildlife major.

I don't believe that the issue you raised was at a...

2009-12-16T12:53:31.050-05:00

I don't believe that the issue you raised was at all related to guns--pornography. You have saved yourself by making the connection (or spelling it out) of guns to cameras, but this article we are commenting on is still about pornography. I don't think this is the place to discuss abuse of handguns.

Also, informal writing or not, certain logic should always be evident. Like Dr. Peters said, analogies should not be "grossly inappropriate and completely distracting." The issue was pornography, not guns. Why ask for "handgun fans" to switch topics. We already agreed with the main point of your original article, and you have now clarified your analogy so that it is not completely inappropriate.

However, as you ask, here is simply one small dealing with the abuse of handguns which came up at a secular, state university in the past month.

Thanks to Thomas F. for raising a relevant questio...

2009-12-16T12:15:43.815-05:00

Thanks to Thomas F. for raising a relevant question. The analogy I am drawing is between handguns and cameras as instruments subject to abuse, not between handguns (instrument) and pornography (abuse). No doubt I should have made the point in my original piece, but in informal writing one doesn’t always anticipate a need to spell out every single thing. Live and learn. Now would the handgun fans please get down to brass tacks and say what measures they support to deal with the widespread abuse of handguns?

Why blame liberals ("the liberal cliché that porno...

2009-12-15T16:45:04.542-05:00

Why blame liberals ("the liberal cliché that pornography does no harm") when this, along with many other problems, is a problem for political groups?

Mr. Shaw, here's what you just said in your most r...

2009-12-15T15:59:14.837-05:00

Mr. Shaw, here's what you just said in your most recent post:

"Handguns and cameras both are instruments subject to abuse. While the fundamental moral issue in both cases is the abuse, not the instrument, facilitating the abuse by knowingly making its instrument available to a likely abuser is a form of participation in the abuse."

Or basically:
Handguns and Cameras = Instruments/Enablers

This statement 100% correct. The problem is what you said originally in your article. I believe that what you were saying earlier was that pornography was likened to handguns or basically both were evils.

"As a matter of fact, pornography, like handguns, does great harm: to its users — especially, those who become addicted — as well as to marriages, to family life, and to society as a whole."

Or basically:
Pornography and Handguns = Evil

If you are in fact saying that handguns and cameras can be abused and used the wrong way, you're absolutely right. A handgun can enable a person to shoot someone. A camera can allow someone to take pornographic pictures.

So what exactly are we talking about, Cameras and Handguns? Or Pornography and Handguns? Please do not confuse the issues.

Clarification on your point of view would be appreciated.

A rare writing error by the esteemed R Shaw: a gro...

2009-12-15T14:37:38.898-05:00

A rare writing error by the esteemed R Shaw: a grossly inappropriate and completely distracting analogy, guns and pornography.

Perhaps a parable will help. Generous Uncle Ted b...

2009-12-15T11:27:30.564-05:00

Perhaps a parable will help.

Generous Uncle Ted buys his nephew Jack a high-quality handgun for Christmas. Jack has a history of violent behavior, but Ted reasons, “Guns don’t kill people, people do.”

Touched by his uncle’s generosity, Jack buys Ted a high-quality camera in return. As it happens, Uncle Ted is a pornographer by trade, but Jack reasons, “Cameras don’t make pornography, people do.”

Farfetched? Of course it is. That’s how parables go. But the point is sound: “Guns don’t kill people, people do” and “Cameras don’t make pornography, people do” are equally bad arguments.

Handguns and cameras both are instruments subject to abuse. While the fundamental moral issue in both cases is the abuse, not the instrument, facilitating the abuse by knowingly making its instrument available to a likely abuser is a form of participation in the abuse. Gun fans ought to think about that.

Well, I might also take exception to the notion th...

2009-12-14T21:04:36.013-05:00

Well, I might also take exception to the notion that "pornography is harmless" is a liberal idea. It sounds like a good business motto from pornographers. Feminists tend to be anti-porn. I would have to count myself in the categories of liberal, feminist, and anti-porn.

Otherwise, yes, a needed essay.

I agree: the reference to gun owners has no place ...

2009-12-14T16:18:32.272-05:00

I agree: the reference to gun owners has no place in this article. The reference to pornography should be separate from gun owners. When I read the article, I thought it implied more to infidelity in marriage. I believe that is harmful to a marriage and certainly is not fair to the wife and children.

I strongly agree that pornography is a very real p...

2009-12-14T15:13:08.527-05:00

I strongly agree that pornography is a very real problem in our society. However, I do not appreciate the anti-gun plug. It was not relevant and is a completely different topic. I am a proud conceal carry permit holder; I carry a handgun to protect my family, which is the opposite of what pornography does.

I was reading over my fiancee's shoulder when I sa...

2009-12-14T14:53:07.519-05:00

I was reading over my fiancee's shoulder when I saw the Tiger Woods article. It seemed like a great article until we got to the comment about handguns. I must ask, how do handguns do great harm to their users? Please explain for I am an ignorant conservative.

"As a matter of fact, pornography, like handguns, does great harm: to its users — especially, those who become addicted — as well as to marriages, to family life, and to society as a whole."

Maybe you made a mistake when you insinuated that handguns, like pornography, were harmful to there users. Maybe not. Also, I would like to point out that hammers don't knock nails into the wall, people swinging hammers knock nails into the wall.
Remember St. Thomas and the Unmoved Mover? hmm... think about that one for a moment.

Other then the one comparison that was made, the rest of the article is great.

I would strongly agree that pornography is intrins...

2009-12-14T14:37:39.334-05:00

I would strongly agree that pornography is intrinsically wrong--using people, demeaning people, etc. However, PLEASE refrain from comparing pornography to gun ownership/use! Guns are morally neutral, whereas, pornography ALWAYS hurts someone (the subjects of pornography, the users, the family members, children, etc.). It's apples and oranges. There is no comparison.

Please do not confuse issues here! By comparing this to guns, you can risk driving away people who might be convinced by your argument only to find your flawed sense of comparison and issues.