Shooting our mouths off, as well as our guns

After yet another mass shooting, the Monitor's language columnist considers the role of gun metaphors in ordinary conversation.

Why do Americans keep shooting their mouths off?

A few weeks after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., last December, I bookmarked a commentary by an educational consultant named Joe Lurie. His point was to question all the gun metaphors that creep into daily conversation in American English.

"Having worked as a university executive with students from more than 80 countries," Mr. Lurie wrote, "I've noticed that students from abroad are struck by the violent language in our songs and films, and they hear it bleeding into our political discourse."

The piece, which I found on the website of the Contra Costa Times, in California, was illustrated with an Associated Press photo taken after Christmas in a gun shop in Casper, Wyo. The shop had been all but stripped of merchandise by customers eager for military-style guns. The caption indicated that the store, like many nationwide, had sold out of firearms after the Sandy Hook shootings raised concerns over the possibility of new antigun legislation.

This concern, we now know, was misplaced. President Obama's proposed bill to tighten gun laws failed in Congress in April, despite overwhelming public support.

I kept my note-to-self about Lurie's commentary on the chance it might regain relevance.

And so, alas, it has. A young gunman identified as John Zawahri went on a shooting rampage June 7 in Santa Monica, Calif., before being killed by the police on the campus of Santa Monica College.

It was not quite so horrific as the tragedy in Newtown, but comparisons are odious, and hearts in California are no less broken than were those in Connecticut.

And meanwhile, the gun metaphors Lurie mentioned are alive and well: Americans continue to admire a "straight shooter," long after the phrase made it into our speech as an adaptation from cowboy movies.

We've had "Crossfire" as the name of a political talk show – vanished from CNN for several years now but rumored to be on its way back. Before that, there was William F. Buckley's long-running "Firing Line" – although that show was rather more genteel than its name suggested, certainly by comparison with contemporary standards.

When we're under deadline pressure, we speak of ourselves as "under the gun."

We gather "ammunition" for our arguments – including those in favor of more gun control. We speak of someone "shooting himself in the foot" when he does something to defeat his own purpose.

I have to plead guilty myself. I'll promise to "shoot for" a particular deadline when I'm trying to signal my intent but hint at my lack of certainty that I'll make it.

Of course, our metaphors don't always come from where we think they do. The "bullet points" of our memos have nothing to do with guns. Etymologically, they're just "little balls." "Troubleshooters" originally worked on telegraph or telephone lines, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary.

It may be just journalese to write, "The program is aimed at new mothers," rather than "The program is intended to help new mothers." But our choice of metaphor does betray something about our thinking. And it's worth paying attention to the imagery behind our casual turns of phrase.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Shooting our mouths off, as well as our guns
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Verbal-Energy/2013/0621/Shooting-our-mouths-off-as-well-as-our-guns
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe