I suspect Zvi didn’t spell out “active shooter drills haven’t prevented school shootings because we’ve had active shooter drills for a decade now and school shootings haven’t stopped”
(and the corollary “active shooter drills haven’t improved outcomes in the shootings that still occur”)
because he figured his readers would be able and willing to make that particular inferential leap on their own.
“Stopping” is not what “mitigate” means. It means that consequences are not so bad. Bullet proof vests are mitigation, not prevention. Option C is what prevents shootings happening.
because he figured his readers would be able and willing to make that particular inferential leap on their own
In my culture, it’s an obvious fact that school shootings are a completely soluble problem … But I wouldn’t expect other cultures to have an implicit understanding of that .
This seems to be a complete non-sequitur, relative to my comment above.
You seem to be responding as if I had … made some sort of claim that school shootings cannot be solved or prevented? Or that Zvi had made such a claim?
Which leaves me confused. I do not think I said what it seems you think I said.
TAG, you are not communicating, here. Communication is not currently managing to happen, between us. (Edit to reduce blameyness/hostility.)
I don’t know what your quoting a comment several steps up the comment chain has to do with answering my confusion about your non-sequitur. Are you trying to say “it’s not a non-sequitur relative to your last comment, Duncan, because it ties in with something many steps previous in the conversation”?
I suspect Zvi didn’t spell out “active shooter drills haven’t prevented school shootings because we’ve had active shooter drills for a decade now and school shootings haven’t stopped”
(and the corollary “active shooter drills haven’t improved outcomes in the shootings that still occur”)
because he figured his readers would be able and willing to make that particular inferential leap on their own.
“Stopping” is not what “mitigate” means. It means that consequences are not so bad. Bullet proof vests are mitigation, not prevention. Option C is what prevents shootings happening.
That’s fair, but the burden of proof is still on B. There is zero evidence that B mitigates school shootings in any fashion.
In my culture, it’s an obvious fact that school shootings are a completely soluble problem … But I wouldn’t expect other cultures to have an implicit understanding of that .
This seems to be a complete non-sequitur, relative to my comment above.
You seem to be responding as if I had … made some sort of claim that school shootings cannot be solved or prevented? Or that Zvi had made such a claim?
Which leaves me confused. I do not think I said what it seems you think I said.
TAG, you are not communicating, here.Communication is not currently managing to happen, between us. (Edit to reduce blameyness/hostility.)I don’t know what your quoting a comment several steps up the comment chain has to do with answering my confusion about your non-sequitur. Are you trying to say “it’s not a non-sequitur relative to your last comment, Duncan, because it ties in with something many steps previous in the conversation”?