English language abuses

[headoverheels 291]

Quote

The rapist was killed by John Rich weilding the new Kel Tec shotgun with dual 7 round magazines. Man, did he have some firepower in a compact package!

Imprecise and ambiguous. Was it the Tel Tec or the rapist's "compact package" the had the impressive fire power?

[billvon 2,427]

>Imprecise and ambiguous.

Agreed. It should be "The rapist was killed by John Rich weilding an unlicensed Kel Tec assault shotgun with dual 7 round magazines."

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

They all say, "killed by shotgun blast" not, "killed by shotgun." Big difference.

No difference. The blast came from the shotgun, and could not have occured without the person holding the shotgun. What none of those quotes bother to mention is that there had to be a PERSON operating the shotgun who initiated the blast. And that's the point of it being brought up in this thread. They're talking about these deaths as if the shotgun or "shotgun blast" was solely responsible for it.

In some cases there was a police officer behind the shotgun, and the papers seem to want to refrain from accusing a police officer of murder, so they blame only the shotgun for the death. In other cases, the shooter is unknown, so once again they blame the shotgun. This is bad reporting. The simple fact is that in all cases SOMEONE was operating that shotgun, and they should be mentioned in the same sentence.

For example:

Headline: "Danziger Bridge shooting victim killed by shotgun blast to back of the head"
The truth: "Danziger Bridge shooting victim killed by policeman with a shotgun blast to back of the head"

Headline: "Gabe Ben-Meir was killed by a shotgun blast to his head"
The truth: "Robber with shotgun killed Gabe Ben-Meir with blast to his head"

Headline: "Shotgun blast killed man in Oriole Park, police say"
The truth: "Unknown male suspect killed man in Oriole Park with shotgun blast, police say

By isolating the guilt to only the tool, and not the person holding the tool, they are demonizing firearms to the eyes of the public, instead of properly placing the blame where it belongs - on the criminal who was operating the gun.

And then we wonder why some people think all guns are bad.

How about if we report low hook turn fatalities with a headline like; "Skydiver killed when parachute makes low turn near ground". Doesn't everyone already hate it when the media reports "Parachute failed to open", which implies that the jumper did everything properly but the parachute equipment failed? When in fact the case is usually that the jumper never even initiated parachute deployment. This gun stuff, above, is just more of the ignorant and deceitful media reporting that we see all the time with skydiving accidents.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Would you prefer, "killed by pellets/slug penetrating the body at a high rate of speed due to very recent ejection from local shotgun, said shotgun recently ejecting the pellets/slug because someone activated the shotgun's trigger mechanism?".

I'd think it would be more accurate to say "John killed Bob with a shotgun" rather than "Bob was killed by a shotgun blast" - I blame John. In the second item, sometimes they don't even mention who John was...... and you think the agenda is on the other side...

anyway - the only point of the comment was to emphasize that killing is done by a person, not an object and it set you off and you deserve the mockery and the followup beer accordingly for it.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

Quote

...you deserve the mockery and the followup beer accordingly for it.

I will drink my beer in shame, alone and sobbing.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Are you equally offended by, "John Doe was killed in a car accident?" Someone had to be driving the car. Why is the media demonizing cars?

Admit it, you have a quick trigger when it comes to gun issues, and may be seeing things that aren't really there.

- Dan G

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Imprecise and ambiguous.

Agreed. It should be "The rapist was killed by John Rich weilding an unlicensed Kel Tec assault shotgun with dual 7 round magazines."

No license needed for long guns/shotguns. Try again.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,427]

>No license needed for long guns/shotguns.

Never said there was! However it is certainly possible in some locations to get a license for one, so from a purely language perspective it is both accurate and more descriptive than the previous statement.

Of course that language does not provide the desired political spin.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>No license needed for long guns/shotguns.

Never said there was! However it is certainly possible in some locations to get a license for one, so from a purely language perspective it is both accurate and more descriptive than the previous statement.

Of course that language does not provide the desired political spin.

Said 'desired political spin' being the mention of an unlicensed weapon?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,427]

>Said 'desired political spin' being the mention of an unlicensed weapon?

Thank you for, once again, proving my point.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Said 'desired political spin' being the mention of an unlicensed weapon?

Thank you for, once again, proving my point.

Thanks for once again proving mine.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Am I the only one who sees this in everyday life?

You mean people who talk about tools when they really mean guns? that kind of thing?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

...you deserve the mockery and the followup beer accordingly for it.

I will drink my beer in shame, alone and sobbing.

shamed and sobbing? if you like
alone? never

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

The rapist was killed by John Rich weilding the new Kel Tec shotgun with dual 7 round magazines. Man, did he have some firepower in a compact package!

Imprecise and ambiguous. Was it the Tel Tec or the rapist's "compact package" the had the impressive fire power?

While I admire twisting words for comedic value, the pronoun 'he' can only refer back to 'John Rich;. It can not skip John to reach back to the 'rapist'. Now, I admit that one could read the second sentence to reference John's 'package' rather than the shotgun, but I avoid describing other men's packages in any terms.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

Dan:

Finally ran a google of 'killed by shotgun"

http://www.reflector.com/crimerescue/autopsy-landlord-killed-shotgun-1079729

Headline reads: "Autopsy: Landlord killed by shotgun"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2844641/posts

Headline reads: "‘Man killed by shotgun’ in Leeds park"

I agree that it is wild, but I notice it too often.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

Am I the only one who sees this in everyday life?

You mean people who talk about tools when they really mean guns? that kind of thing?

Frankly, a gun IS a tool. I live in the country. We have bears coming around - one killed my cat last year.

We've had rabid foxes hanging around -- one went after a neighbor's pet a couple of years ago. He was killed 'by a 22 caliber long gun' and was found to test positive for rabies.

Skunks and racoons also get rabies and attack people and pets. Not to mention persistent rumors of wildcats attacking livestock....

That's why we have guns here - they ARE tools used to protect our livelihoods, homes and families...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

They all say, "killed by shotgun blast" not, "killed by shotgun." Big difference.

No difference. The blast came from the shotgun, and could not have occured without the person holding the shotgun. What none of those quotes bother to mention is that there had to be a PERSON operating the shotgun who initiated the blast. And that's the point of it being brought up in this thread. They're talking about these deaths as if the shotgun or "shotgun blast" was solely responsible for it.

In some cases there was a police officer behind the shotgun, and the papers seem to want to refrain from accusing a police officer of murder, so they blame only the shotgun for the death. In other cases, the shooter is unknown, so once again they blame the shotgun. This is bad reporting. The simple fact is that in all cases SOMEONE was operating that shotgun, and they should be mentioned in the same sentence.

For example:

Headline: "Danziger Bridge shooting victim killed by shotgun blast to back of the head"
The truth: "Danziger Bridge shooting victim killed by policeman with a shotgun blast to back of the head"

Headline: "Gabe Ben-Meir was killed by a shotgun blast to his head"
The truth: "Robber with shotgun killed Gabe Ben-Meir with blast to his head"

Headline: "Shotgun blast killed man in Oriole Park, police say"
The truth: "Unknown male suspect killed man in Oriole Park with shotgun blast, police say

By isolating the guilt to only the tool, and not the person holding the tool, they are demonizing firearms to the eyes of the public, instead of properly placing the blame where it belongs - on the criminal who was operating the gun.

And then we wonder why some people think all guns are bad.

How about if we report low hook turn fatalities with a headline like; "Skydiver killed when parachute makes low turn near ground". Doesn't everyone already hate it when the media reports "Parachute failed to open", which implies that the jumper did everything properly but the parachute equipment failed? When in fact the case is usually that the jumper never even initiated parachute deployment. This gun stuff, above, is just more of the ignorant and deceitful media reporting that we see all the time with skydiving accidents.

This is a really good post John.

I had a discussion with my brother-in-law last fall when talking about reporting of another category of events that I'll refrain from naming. The argument I made that got him thinking (keeping in mind he taught at UNC for a while) was to imagine watching a college basketball game being cast by Dick Vitale while you were rooting for the team playing against Duke. He may not say anything factually inaccurate, but through emphasis and omission you can bias the shit out of any story.

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

anyway - the only point of the comment was to emphasize that killing is done by a person, not an object and it set you off and you deserve the mockery and the followup beer accordingly for it.

So let's take this to another scenario to see if this is worakable, ro if people are just bent out of shape due to it concerning guns:

The following passage is fromt his enws article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2009/12/24/scaffold-accident.html

Quote

A highrise scaffolding collapse claimed four men's lives on Christmas Eve, leaving their split staging equipment dangling more than 10 storeys above a west-end Toronto street.

Obviously scaffolding is just an object and does not collapse just by itself.

How should this then be written properly?

[rehmwa 2]

It's an odd analogy you're trying to put out there. I'd say it's only comparable if the scaffolding collapsed due to someone actively setting it off on purpose.

"A terrorist caused a highrise scaffolding to collapse claiming four men's lives on Christmas Eve,"

Though, "collapse" is not analogous to "killed", but it is pretty analogous to "blast". In both cases, it still doesn't note who did it, or if it was on purpose or not.

Quote

Obviously scaffolding is just an object and does not collapse just by itself.

really? I guess if a gun was just sitting there on a table and went off randomly, then I'd have no issue saying a gun killed someone. Then the analogy would likely be to compare the owner that left it loaded with the engineer that designed the scaffolding or the contractor that built it incorrectly......



My short answer is that I'm still more interested in why the scaffolding collapsed and who, if any, was responsible than just the fact that it went down.

Seems in the case of a criminal shooting someone, that analogous investigation is a lot quicker and easier to determine - the shooter is the guy that pulled the trigger.

I'll read the rest of the article too and see if there's followup on what's being done to see why - I bet there's a comment in there on those lines.


lastly - I don't really think that there is an active effort out in the world to ban scaffolding by people that have no idea or experience with scaffolding other than movies they've seen that caused them to be scared of scaffolding and also by them going to social events with others they want to hang out with that pontificate about popular subjects in the social circle such as why scaffolding is bad. So I don't think the question of motivation is really comparable either.



however - I get your point. If we can save just one person, one child, ABSOLUTELY, ban all scaffolding.

I'm still in pain remember how scaffolding killed my brother in 'Nam back in the 60's.........

for the children

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

really?

Really!

Scaffolding like a gun requires a force to perform an action that could be lethal.

Further scenario:

They find a man in his car, with a gunshot wound to teh temple. He is dead. How should that be reported?

Quote

lastly - I don't really think that there is an active effort out in the world to ban scaffolding by people that have no idea or experience with scaffolding other than movies they've seen that caused them to be scared of scaffolding and also by them going to social events with others they want to hang out with that pontificate about popular subjects in the social circle such as why scaffolding is bad. So I don't think the question of motivation is really comparable either.

So you think newspaper reporters are actively using the same language with guns as other objects that can deliver lethal consequences, because they are motivated to ban guns?