A scientist compared US gun massacres to car accidents and the ‘flu – 7 perfect takedowns
Not the first time astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson has appeared on these pages and we’re now totally convinced it won’t be the last.
The so-called big brain took to Twitter, appearing to suggest that people were so appalled by the latest gun massacres in America because ‘our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data’.
This is what he said.
In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings.
On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose…
500 to Medical errors
300 to the Flu
250 to Suicide
200 to Car Accidents
40 to Homicide via HandgunOften our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data.
— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) August 4, 2019
And every one of these responses was perfect.
1.
https://twitter.com/h3h3productions/status/1158097798459301888
2.
No one person caused 500 medical errors.
No one person caused 200 vehicle deaths.
No one person committed 200 suicides.
No one person killed 40 people with a handgun.One asshole with a high powered rifle killed 20 people in El Paso.
See the fucking difference.
— Sam Newell Ω (@BFranklin2017) 5 August 2019
3.
There are dozens of ways to call out the wrongness of this tweet but the most productive one is to point out that we have mobilized research and funding to significantly reduce many of these harms; but been unwilling to do so for gun violence. https://t.co/2UPFdRULRI
— Jody Avirgan – mostly on threads (@jodyavirgan) August 4, 2019
4.
Neil’s been smoking DeGrass
— Ethan Klein (@h3h3productions) 5 August 2019
5.
18 years ago we had a single shoe bomber who didn’t kill anyone—and we completely altered airport screening for the country.
Maybe we should respond to handgun deaths with that kind of urgency—and maybe you posting this is a slap in the face to 34 families planning funerals.— John Pavlovitz (@johnpavlovitz) 5 August 2019
6.
For me, the spectacle of a once-respected scientist now yields data.
One less person willing to follow you because of your inability to understand the difference between murder, for the sake of inspiring terror, and a car accident.
— Annie Gabston-Howell- (@AnnieGabstonH) 5 August 2019
7.
It’s almost comforting that even a super important scientist can be so fundamentally stupid on some subjects.
— Candice Aiston (@CandiceAiston) 5 August 2019
To conclude …
Hell yeah Neil you sure showed those *checks notes* victims of a mass shooting https://t.co/SFWLN4iddJ
— john patrick: future president (@john_from_hr) August 4, 2019
He later had this to say about his tweet and there response it prompted.
‘My intent was to offer objectively true information that might help shape conversations and reactions to preventable ways we die. Where I miscalculated was that I genuinely believed the Tweet would be helpful to anyone trying to save lives in America. What I learned from the range of reactions is that for many people, some information –-my Tweet in particular — can be true but unhelpful, especially at a time when many people are either still in shock, or trying to heal – or both.
‘So if you are one of those people, I apologise for not knowing in advance what effect my Tweet could have on you. I am therefore thankful for the candor and depth of critical reactions shared in my Twitter feed. As an educator, I personally value knowing with precision and accuracy what reaction anything that I say (or write) will instill in my audience, and I got this one wrong.’
READ MORE
An astrophysicist took issue with Disney’s poster for Frozen 2 and everyone made the same joke
