Discussion:
"Our gun violence problem is also a language problem."
Add Reply
l***@yahoo.com
2020-02-14 21:47:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have to say, I've NEVER understood why victims or bystanders are so often described as having been "in the wrong place at the wrong time." What sense does that make?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/opinion/parkland-shooting-gun-violence.html


By Gregory Gibson

First half:

Two years ago Friday, 17 people were shot to death at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., by a man who should not have had a gun. When a friend reminded me of this “anniversary” a couple of weeks ago, I asked him if he believed that was an appropriate word for the occasion. “I hadn’t thought about it,” he said.

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that our gun violence problem is also a language problem — euphemisms, distortions, misdirections. But it turns out the Parkland students are addressing this problem in their own unique way.

My anniversary is July 7, the day my wife, Anne Marie, and I were married. It was one of the happiest days of my life. She was pregnant with Galen, who was born on Sept. 27, 1974, another happiest day. Eighteen years later, on Dec. 14, 1992, Galen was killed in a school shooting. It always felt obscene to associate that event with an “anniversary.”

It gets worse. Our son wasn’t “taken,” as common parlance has it. He was shot and killed by a man who should not have had a gun. People sometimes tell me how tragic it was that Galen happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is intended as consolation, but it’s no help to me. It was Galen’s killer who was in the wrong place — in every sense.

But is that even what people mean? Doesn’t “wrong” imply some kind of fault? Galen’s entire life brought him to that last fatal place at the last fatal moment. Are people implying that he’d lived it in error?

Galen had never been in “the wrong place.” He was murdered, not “lost,” another way of misstating this hideous circumstance. And who, as well-meaning people sometimes do, would issue a “trigger warning” to survivors of gun violence? Or advise me to give “my best shot” at telling Galen’s story? Or even ask me if I’d be willing to “share” it? I’m always happy to help, but that kindly locution gives me pause. If someone put a bowl of vomit in front of you, would that be considered “sharing?”

And what about the scripted manner in which the news media portrays mass shootings? The 911 call transcript, Humvees disgorging SWAT teams, witnesses hugging and weeping, ambulances rolling away, candles lit at “memorials.” We never see a body. We never see what a .223 round of ammunition can actually do to a human. It has all been sanitized. When I hear a congressman call for a “moment of silence,” I hear him saying, “I don’t want to talk about this.”

We respond to gun violence in such a manner because the thing of which we speak is so hideous that we need to normalize it. Our word choices conceal the true nature of gun violence in an effort to make it go away. And that’s precisely the problem...

(snip)



Lenona.
Mark Brader
2020-02-14 21:53:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I have to say, I've NEVER understood why victims or bystanders are so
often described as having been "in the wrong place at the wrong time."
What sense does that make?
If they had been in a different place at that time, they would not
have been victims of that event. If they had been in the same place,
but at a different time, they would not. Wrong place, wrong time.
Perfectly sensible.
--
Mark Brader | "Don't you want to... see my ID? ... I could be anybody."
Toronto | "No you couldn't, sir. This is Information Retrieval."
***@vex.net | --Brazil
l***@yahoo.com
2020-02-14 21:59:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I have to say, I've NEVER understood why victims or bystanders are so
often described as having been "in the wrong place at the wrong time."
What sense does that make?
If they had been in a different place at that time, they would not
have been victims of that event. If they had been in the same place,
but at a different time, they would not. Wrong place, wrong time.
Perfectly sensible.
There's far more to language than that, you know. As the author spelled out.


Lenona.
Mack A. Damia
2020-02-15 00:23:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Brader
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I have to say, I've NEVER understood why victims or bystanders are so
often described as having been "in the wrong place at the wrong time."
What sense does that make?
If they had been in a different place at that time, they would not
have been victims of that event. If they had been in the same place,
but at a different time, they would not. Wrong place, wrong time.
Perfectly sensible.
There's far more to language than that, you know. As the author spelled out.
But the wrong place at the wrong time is every day in America. Truly.
Mark Brader
2020-02-15 03:23:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
There's far more to language than that, you know.
Plonk.
--
Mark Brader Safire's Rule on Who-Whom:
Toronto "Whenever 'whom' sounds correct, recast the sentence."
***@vex.net --William Safire, N.Y. Times Magazine
Anders D. Nygaard
2020-02-15 07:35:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by l***@yahoo.com
There's far more to language than that, you know.
Plonk.
Would you care to share why?

Usually when people announce plonking, it's in response
to offensive or obnoxious postings or obvious trollery,
but that does not seem to apply here.

FWIW, I think that Lenona's point (or rather, that of Mr Gibson)
is an interesting one to discuss: Why does the language used
tend towards normalizing what in every other country is
extremely exceptional, and might be described as random mass murder.

In your previous comment, you singled out one particular example
of such language, and argued that it was completely sensible,
but the argument is about the total weight of many individually
sensible decisions all tending in the same direction - which is
the essence of what Lenona replied.

/Anders, Denmark
Ross
2020-02-15 11:05:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Mark Brader
Post by l***@yahoo.com
There's far more to language than that, you know.
Plonk.
Would you care to share why?
Usually when people announce plonking, it's in response
to offensive or obnoxious postings or obvious trollery,
but that does not seem to apply here.
FWIW, I think that Lenona's point (or rather, that of Mr Gibson)
is an interesting one to discuss: Why does the language used
tend towards normalizing what in every other country is
extremely exceptional, and might be described as random mass murder.
In your previous comment, you singled out one particular example
of such language, and argued that it was completely sensible,
but the argument is about the total weight of many individually
sensible decisions all tending in the same direction - which is
the essence of what Lenona replied.
/Anders, Denmark
I don't see that there is such a tendency.

"Anniversary" has already been mentioned. There is no "decision"
involved in its use -- what other word would you prefer? We
commemorate all kinds of events, good and bad, after the passing
of a year.

Terms like "taken" and "lost" are euphemisms for death; such
avoidance expressions are well nigh universal. They are generally
thought to be a kindness to the bereaved. How would things be
better if we made a decision to say "shot" or "murdered" or
"ripped to pieces by bullets"?

"Wrong place, wrong time" does not imply any fault. In fact it
emphasizes the innocence of the victim -- killed not because
they were doing anything illegal or dangerous, but just...well,
our culture believes in something called luck, which can be
good or bad. Maybe that concept (not the language) has something
to do with the problem.

I don't question Mr Gibson's account of his own suffering. But
I think he's mistaken when he thinks he sees a language problem.
There is a gun problem, and no amount of tinkering with language
is going to fix it.
s***@gmail.com
2020-02-15 12:14:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross
There is a gun problem,
yes.

according to Trump supporters - the issue is that they are not allowed to have tanks, nuclear weapons etc.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/02/22/personal-ownership-of-nuclear-weapons-may-be-legal-under-the-second-amendment/
l***@yahoo.com
2020-02-15 18:40:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross
"Wrong place, wrong time" does not imply any fault. In fact it
emphasizes the innocence of the victim -- killed not because
they were doing anything illegal or dangerous, but just...well,
our culture believes in something called luck, which can be
good or bad. Maybe that concept (not the language) has something
to do with the problem.
And that concept is expressed in the language.

Plenty of people will tell you that "luck," in its magical sense, does not exist. What's more, it is not a coincidence when someone commits a crime. Which is why, even as a naive teenager, many years ago, I sensed there was something definitely wrong and cringe worthy with Edith Hamilton's retelling of the sad story of Creusa in "Mythology." Namely:

"Creusa was the sister of Procris and Orithyia, and she too was an unfortunate woman. One day when she was hardly more than a child she was gathering crocuses on a cliff where there was a deep cave. Her veil, which she had used for a basket, was full of the yellow blooms and she had turned to go home when she was caught up in the arms of a man who had appeared from nowhere, as if the invisible had suddenly become visible. He was divinely beautiful, but in her agony of terror she never noticed what he was like. She screamed for her mother, but there was no help for her. Her abductor was Apollo himself. He carried her off to the dark cave.

"God though he was she hated him, especially when the time came for her child to be born and he showed her no sign, gave her no aid. She did not dare tell her parents. The fact that the lover was a god and could not be resisted was, as many stories show, not accepted as an excuse. A girl ran every risk of being killed if she confessed..."


I mean, if we don't refer to rape victims - or ANY crime victims, really - as "unfortunate people," nowadays, shouldn't we be using different terminology in other ways too?

IMO, the implication of that long-ago term was that crime victims were nothing better than contagious - as if being violated were a greater crime than committing the crime. Or as if crime victims could expect to be shunned, but not to be treated with any sympathy or support.


Lenona.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-02-15 18:43:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Oh, yes, not to mention (I've discussed this elsewhere) - why in the world did Hamilton use the word "lover" when she could just as easily have written "man" or "stranger" or even "brute"? Consider, after all, what she said at the beginning of the chapter:

"...The tale of Creüsa and Ion is the subject of a play of Euripides, one of the many plays in which he tried to show the Athenians what the gods of the myths really were when judged by the ordinary human standards of mercy, honor, self-control. Greek mythology was full of stories such as that of the rape of Europa, in which never a suggestion was allowed that the deity in question had acted somewhat less than divinely. In his version of the story of Creüsa Euripides said to his audience, 'Look at your Apollo, the sun-bright Lord of the Lyre, the pure God of Truth. This is what he did. He brutally forced a helpless young girl and then he abandoned her.' The end of Greek mythology was at hand when such plays drew full houses in Athens."



Lenona.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-02-15 18:46:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 1:40:28 PM UTC-5, ***@yahoo.com wrote:


Or as if crime victims could expect to be shunned, but not to be treated with any sympathy or support.


Change that to "should." After all, Hamilton was writing for 20th-century readers - and she didn't put "unfortunate woman" in quotes, either.
John Dunlop
2020-02-15 15:38:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Mark Brader
Post by l***@yahoo.com
There's far more to language than that, you know.
Plonk.
Would you care to share why?
MB provided a perfectly adequate answer to the question that was asked.
It seems the OP wanted an answer to a different question, though, one
embedded somewhere in an article by someone else (I have no idea what it
was since I wasn't interested enough to read the article). I can see why
the OP's response might have been thought a little shirty, but maybe
some slack should have been cut for a non-native speaker.
--
John
Sam Plusnet
2020-02-15 21:00:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Mark Brader
Post by l***@yahoo.com
There's far more to language than that, you know.
Plonk.
Would you care to share why?
Usually when people announce plonking, it's in response
to offensive or obnoxious postings or obvious trollery,
but that does not seem to apply here.
FWIW, I think that Lenona's point (or rather, that of Mr Gibson)
is an interesting one to discuss: Why does the language used
tend towards normalizing what in every other country is
extremely exceptional, and might be described as random mass murder.
In your previous comment, you singled out one particular example
of such language, and argued that it was completely sensible,
but the argument is about the total weight of many individually
sensible decisions all tending in the same direction - which is
the essence of what Lenona replied.
Normalising language allows everyone to say "So sad, too bad, never
mind, let's all move on." rather than deal in a serious way with the
true nature of the problem.
At least, that's how I understood the article.
--
Sam Plusnet
Ross
2020-02-15 21:39:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Mark Brader
Post by l***@yahoo.com
There's far more to language than that, you know.
Plonk.
Would you care to share why?
Usually when people announce plonking, it's in response
to offensive or obnoxious postings or obvious trollery,
but that does not seem to apply here.
FWIW, I think that Lenona's point (or rather, that of Mr Gibson)
is an interesting one to discuss: Why does the language used
tend towards normalizing what in every other country is
extremely exceptional, and might be described as random mass murder.
In your previous comment, you singled out one particular example
of such language, and argued that it was completely sensible,
but the argument is about the total weight of many individually
sensible decisions all tending in the same direction - which is
the essence of what Lenona replied.
Normalising language allows everyone to say "So sad, too bad, never
mind, let's all move on." rather than deal in a serious way with the
true nature of the problem.
At least, that's how I understood the article.
What non-normal language should people be using? And in what way would
using such language enable them to deal with the problem?
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2020-02-15 14:23:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I have to say, I've NEVER understood why victims or bystanders are so
often described as having been "in the wrong place at the wrong time."
What sense does that make?
If they had been in a different place at that time, they would not
have been victims of that event. If they had been in the same place,
but at a different time, they would not. Wrong place, wrong time.
Perfectly sensible.
Up to a point. "In the wrong place at the wrong time" is usually used
when someone is "randomly" present in a location and is not a deliberate
target of an event.

In this case while the victims might not have been targetted
individually, they were targetted because they were students and staff
of that school. They weren't randomly present at the school.

If, by chance, someone was passing the school on a nearby road and was
hit by a stray bulllet then that person could certainly be described as
being "in the wrong place at the wrong time".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2020-02-14 22:19:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I have to say, I've NEVER understood why victims or bystanders are so often described as having been "in the wrong place at the wrong time." What sense does that make?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/opinion/parkland-shooting-gun-violence.html
By Gregory Gibson
Two years ago Friday, 17 people were shot to death at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., by a man who should not have had a gun. When a friend reminded me of this “anniversary” a couple of weeks ago, I asked him if he believed that was an appropriate word for the occasion. “I hadn’t thought about it,” he said.
The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that our gun violence problem is also a language problem — euphemisms, distortions, misdirections. But it turns out the Parkland students are addressing this problem in their own unique way.
My anniversary is July 7, the day my wife, Anne Marie, and I were married. It was one of the happiest days of my life. She was pregnant with Galen, who was born on Sept. 27, 1974, another happiest day. Eighteen years later, on Dec. 14, 1992, Galen was killed in a school shooting. It always felt obscene to associate that event with an “anniversary.”
It gets worse. Our son wasn’t “taken,” as common parlance has it. He was shot and killed by a man who should not have had a gun. People sometimes tell me how tragic it was that Galen happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is intended as consolation, but it’s no help to me. It was Galen’s killer who was in the wrong place — in every sense.
But is that even what people mean? Doesn’t “wrong” imply some kind of fault? Galen’s entire life brought him to that last fatal place at the last fatal moment. Are people implying that he’d lived it in error?
Galen had never been in “the wrong place.” He was murdered, not “lost,” another way of misstating this hideous circumstance. And who, as well-meaning people sometimes do, would issue a “trigger warning” to survivors of gun violence? Or advise me to give “my best shot” at telling Galen’s story? Or even ask me if I’d be willing to “share” it? I’m always happy to help, but that kindly locution gives me pause. If someone put a bowl of vomit in front of you, would that be considered “sharing?”
And what about the scripted manner in which the news media portrays mass shootings? The 911 call transcript, Humvees disgorging SWAT teams, witnesses hugging and weeping, ambulances rolling away, candles lit at “memorials.” We never see a body. We never see what a .223 round of ammunition can actually do to a human. It has all been sanitized. When I hear a congressman call for a “moment of silence,” I hear him saying, “I don’t want to talk about this.”
We respond to gun violence in such a manner because the thing of which we speak is so hideous that we need to normalize it. Our word choices conceal the true nature of gun violence in an effort to make it go away. And that’s precisely the problem...
(snip)
Mr. Gibson doesn't know the meaning of "anniversary." It has nothing
specifically to do with wedding anniversaries.

And there was a time when pregnant brides were not something to be
announced, but something to be hidden.

Was Galen in the right place at the wrong time? or the wrong place at
the right time? The only other logical option is the right place at
the right time, and surely he wouldn't assent to that.

And he managed to leave out the single most obscene statement associated
with such events: "The families of the victims have our thoughts and
prayers, but such a time of great emotion is not the time to pretend
to do something about gun ownership."

Mr. Gibson's biography is not quoted. Does he represent a somewhat
right-of-center viewpoint?
l***@yahoo.com
2020-02-14 22:44:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Mr. Gibson's biography is not quoted. Does he represent a somewhat
right-of-center viewpoint?
I take it you couldn't scroll to the bottom. If you like:

"Gregory Gibson is the author of 'Gone Boy: A Father’s Search for the Truth in His Son’s Murder.'"

And here's the rest:

...One hundred people die from the coronavirus and the world freaks out. One hundred people are killed by guns each day in America and it’s business as usual. The ugly fact is that gun violence can happen wherever there are guns, and guns are everywhere: There are nearly 400 million civilian-owned guns in this country, and they’re not going away.

Perhaps if we acknowledged this fact, if we found ways of addressing the situation as it truly is, we’d be closer to solving the one problem on which Second Amendment nuts and gun-grabbers can agree: How do we keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them?

And one other thing. It’s heartbreaking to see and hear, over and over again, stories told by parents whose children have been killed, and by children whose classmates have been slaughtered before their eyes. After a while, however, we burn out on these stories. They cease to inspire us to action; they make us want to turn the channel.

This is what so encourages me about what those Parkland survivors have been doing. They’re “sharing” their stories, sure. But they’ve also been using their teenage smarts and snark to leverage those stories, to “weaponize” them. They are nudging the narrative away from the old ideological stalemate and focusing on a moral question: What kind of society allows such unfettered access to the tools of slaughter?

At the March for Our Lives rally in Washington in 2018, they pinned bright orange price tags to their shirts with the numbers $1.05. That’s how much money they say the National Rifle Association spent to support the campaigns of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida divided by the number of students in the state.

When one student, David Hogg, took the stage, he said, “I’m going to start off by putting this price tag right here just to remind you guys just how much Marco Rubio took for every student’s life in Florida: one dollar and five cents.” The Parkland survivors are getting through to us more effectively because they’ve found ways of talking about their situation that are startlingly and refreshingly direct.

(end)



Lenona.
Peter T. Daniels
2020-02-15 22:51:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Mr. Gibson's biography is not quoted. Does he represent a somewhat
right-of-center viewpoint?
As I said, you did not quote it. Why would I click the link when you
indicated you had copied the whole thing? ("(end)")
Post by l***@yahoo.com
"Gregory Gibson is the author of 'Gone Boy: A Father’s Search for the Truth in His Son’s Murder.'"
That doesn't help, then.
And he advocates no solution at all, just says that holding demonstrations
is a Good Thing. In the middle of what follows (which also has "(end)" at
the end of it), he asks the same tired old questions and offers no answers
whatsoever. Why was the essay even published?
Post by l***@yahoo.com
...One hundred people die from the coronavirus and the world freaks out. One hundred people are killed by guns each day in America and it’s business as usual. The ugly fact is that gun violence can happen wherever there are guns, and guns are everywhere: There are nearly 400 million civilian-owned guns in this country, and they’re not going away.
Perhaps if we acknowledged this fact, if we found ways of addressing the situation as it truly is, we’d be closer to solving the one problem on which Second Amendment nuts and gun-grabbers can agree: How do we keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them?
And one other thing. It’s heartbreaking to see and hear, over and over again, stories told by parents whose children have been killed, and by children whose classmates have been slaughtered before their eyes. After a while, however, we burn out on these stories. They cease to inspire us to action; they make us want to turn the channel.
This is what so encourages me about what those Parkland survivors have been doing. They’re “sharing” their stories, sure. But they’ve also been using their teenage smarts and snark to leverage those stories, to “weaponize” them. They are nudging the narrative away from the old ideological stalemate and focusing on a moral question: What kind of society allows such unfettered access to the tools of slaughter?
At the March for Our Lives rally in Washington in 2018, they pinned bright orange price tags to their shirts with the numbers $1.05. That’s how much money they say the National Rifle Association spent to support the campaigns of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida divided by the number of students in the state.
When one student, David Hogg, took the stage, he said, “I’m going to start off by putting this price tag right here just to remind you guys just how much Marco Rubio took for every student’s life in Florida: one dollar and five cents.” The Parkland survivors are getting through to us more effectively because they’ve found ways of talking about their situation that are startlingly and refreshingly direct.
(end)
l***@yahoo.com
2020-02-16 16:49:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Mr. Gibson's biography is not quoted. Does he represent a somewhat
right-of-center viewpoint?
As I said, you did not quote it. Why would I click the link when you
indicated you had copied the whole thing? ("(end)")
I did not indicate that. You didn't read it that well. I said "first half" at the top, used ellipses at the bottom, and I didn't say "end," either. Until I posted the second half.

The reason I didn't copy the whole thing at first was that I tend to feel guilty about doing that with any publication that typically has a paywall.

And I'd say Gibson DID suggest a partial solution: Learn to talk more bluntly and unapologetically, but eloquently, the way the young survivors are talking, without worrying about how they might get criticized by the NRA. If enough people did that, the NRA just might back down an inch.

Quote:

"The Parkland survivors are getting through to us more effectively because they’ve found ways of talking about their situation that are startlingly and refreshingly direct."



Lenona.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-02-16 16:59:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Btw, Judith Martin (aka Miss Manners) is a former English professor, and she has said in her etiquette column, time and again, that, whether you're talking about language or not, "common sense isn't everything."

Example (she didn't use this one): In theory, "colored people" is not different from "people of color," but almost any white adult knows that you'd better darn well not use the former term these days outside of very narrow circumstances - such as when you have to spell out the abbreviation NAACP. Even a white adult who thinks the change in usage is stupid tends to follow the rules, at least.

In other words, other people's feelings matter, even if you're a five-year-old who completely disagrees with that rule and you're convinced you'll never change your mind.


Lenona.
Peter T. Daniels
2020-02-16 18:41:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Mr. Gibson's biography is not quoted. Does he represent a somewhat
right-of-center viewpoint?
As I said, you did not quote it. Why would I click the link when you
indicated you had copied the whole thing? ("(end)")
I did not indicate that. You didn't read it that well. I said "first half" at the top, used ellipses at the bottom, and I didn't say "end," either. Until I posted the second half.
Sorry. It looked like an entire essay.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
The reason I didn't copy the whole thing at first was that I tend to feel guilty about doing that with any publication that typically has a paywall.
And I'd say Gibson DID suggest a partial solution: Learn to talk more bluntly and unapologetically, but eloquently, the way the young survivors are talking, without worrying about how they might get criticized by the NRA. If enough people did that, the NRA just might back down an inch.
????????????????????????

So you say he advocates more talk -- and you think repeating exactly
what activists have been saying for at least 40 years (since the failed
Reagan assassination) would somehow have some sort of effect on the NRA
or the politicians who are afraid of them?
Post by l***@yahoo.com
"The Parkland survivors are getting through to us more effectively because they’ve found ways of talking about their situation that are startlingly and refreshingly direct."
And what effect has that additional "talking" had even in Florida? Has
the neanderthal Florida legislature come up with anything more sensible
than arming teachers?

(As if schools were the only place threatened by an over-armed citizenry.)
s***@gmail.com
2020-02-16 18:52:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Mr. Gibson's biography is not quoted. Does he represent a somewhat
right-of-center viewpoint?
As I said, you did not quote it. Why would I click the link when you
indicated you had copied the whole thing? ("(end)")
I did not indicate that. You didn't read it that well. I said "first half" at the top, used ellipses at the bottom, and I didn't say "end," either. Until I posted the second half.
Sorry. It looked like an entire essay.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
The reason I didn't copy the whole thing at first was that I tend to feel guilty about doing that with any publication that typically has a paywall.
And I'd say Gibson DID suggest a partial solution: Learn to talk more bluntly and unapologetically, but eloquently, the way the young survivors are talking, without worrying about how they might get criticized by the NRA. If enough people did that, the NRA just might back down an inch.
????????????????????????
So you say he advocates more talk -- and you think repeating exactly
what activists have been saying for at least 40 years (since the failed
Reagan assassination) would somehow have some sort of effect on the NRA
or the politicians who are afraid of them?
Post by l***@yahoo.com
"The Parkland survivors are getting through to us more effectively because they’ve found ways of talking about their situation that are startlingly and refreshingly direct."
And what effect has that additional "talking" had even in Florida? Has
the neanderthal Florida legislature come up with anything more sensible
than arming teachers?
(As if schools were the only place threatened by an over-armed citizenry.)
The American South has this genetic belief that more guns ineluctably lead to more happiness - cold hard statistics has no effect:

https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-deaths-in-florida-increased-with-stand-your-ground-2014-2

the original graph is misleading (it led to a brouhaha among statisticians and it was found that the confusion was caused with no malice aforethought) - but this website shows a corrected graph with no scope for misdirection.
Peter T. Daniels
2020-02-16 19:05:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-deaths-in-florida-increased-with-stand-your-ground-2014-2
Did that really surprise anyone?
Post by s***@gmail.com
the original graph is misleading (it led to a brouhaha among statisticians and it was found that the confusion was caused with no malice aforethought)
Bullshit. There _may_ be occasions when a graph with values increasing
downward makes sense, but not in something as straightforward as this.

- but this website shows a corrected graph with no scope for misdirection.

The original made no sense, unless you carefully looked at the y-axis
labels. Why the hell would _anyone_ draw it that way? "Business Insider"
blames Reuters for the design, and adds a sensible version at the
bottom. But why would they have printed the first one at all?
Tony Cooper
2020-02-16 19:49:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 10:41:00 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And what effect has that additional "talking" had even in Florida? Has
the neanderthal Florida legislature come up with anything more sensible
than arming teachers?
Twenty-six states have passed stricter gun control laws since
Parkland, and the impetus to do so has been driven, in part, by the
actions of the Parkland survivors and their supporters.

Florida has lagged behind, but the legal age to buy a gun has been
raised , the waiting time has been increased, and the Florida "red
flag" gun law has been used 3,500 times since Parkland. Baby steps,
but steps. Some businesses, like Walmart, have taken the initiative
and stopped selling ammunition and small arms and increased their
requirements to buy other weapons.

This really isn't a state issue. When a city like Chicago has strict
gun laws, but guns are readily available from nearby states, the
changes must be at the federal level to be truly effective.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2020-02-16 21:15:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 10:41:00 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And what effect has that additional "talking" had even in Florida? Has
the neanderthal Florida legislature come up with anything more sensible
than arming teachers?
Twenty-six states have passed stricter gun control laws since
Parkland, and the impetus to do so has been driven, in part, by the
actions of the Parkland survivors and their supporters.
Florida has lagged behind, but the legal age to buy a gun has been
raised , the waiting time has been increased, and the Florida "red
flag" gun law has been used 3,500 times since Parkland. Baby steps,
but steps. Some businesses, like Walmart, have taken the initiative
and stopped selling ammunition and small arms and increased their
requirements to buy other weapons.
Did that happen before the El Paso Walmart massacre?
Post by Tony Cooper
This really isn't a state issue. When a city like Chicago has strict
gun laws, but guns are readily available from nearby states, the
Nearby states like Unincorporated Cook County, and Indiana.
Post by Tony Cooper
changes must be at the federal level to be truly effective.
Um, have you looked at the national legislature recently? The Majority
Leader of the Senate will not take up any matter other than confirming
judges nominated by Trump.

Loading...