説明を求める場合にCan you walk us through that?という表現がありました。システム開発をしている人はピンとくるかもしれませんが、なじみのない人はとまどってしまうかもしれません。公開試験でwalk throughが出る可能性は高くないかもしれませんが、基本語だけど文脈をしっかり把握していない例として紹介させてもらいます。
1分30秒あたりから MEGAN THOMPSON: The report also refutes the notion that this happens more often to more African-Americans because they have more contact with police, right? Can you walk us through that? JACK GLASER: Yes, that is one of the general arguments put up to try to explain a way the racial disparities and use of force, and what we did was to test whether the disparities that we see in the population hold up even when you consider the rates at which African-Americans and other minority groups relative to whites have contact with the police. And so, it is above and beyond their higher rate — and they do have higher rates of contact with the police for lots of reasons — but above and beyond their rates of contact with the police, and above and beyond their rates of offending, they are still subject to a disproportionate level of use of force by the police.
（オックスフォード） walk somebody through something to help somebody learn or become familiar with something, by showing them each stage of the process in turn She walked me through a demonstration of the software.
walk-through 1. an occasion when you practise a performance, etc. without an audience being present 2. a careful explanation of the details of a process
W: Well, before I sell the house, I’m considering doing some remodeling that might increase its value. Could you advise me on what would be the best improvements to make? M: Certainly. Why don’t we set up a meeting at your property? We can walk through the house, and I can make a few suggestions.
GWEN IFILL: OK, Evan, let’s take a step from these two branches of government and talk more specifically about the business branch of government, as it were. There is a business incentive which has very little to do with the laws about why guns continue to be sold. これらの二つの政府機関から少し離れて、もう少し具体的なところを話しましょう。言わば政府のビジネス機関についてです。 ビジネスへのインセンティブがありますがこの法律とはほとんど関係はないです。なぜか銃は引き続き販売され続けています。 EVAN OSNOS, The New Yorker: Well, this is the thing I think that is sort of a paradox, is at this very moment when we look at the effects that guns has had on the country in the last two weeks, the gun business is actually doing better than ever. これこそが一種の矛盾と私が考えているものです。まさにこの時に置いて、最近2週間で銃が国に及ぼした影響を目にしたタイミングで、銃ビジネスは実はこれまで以上に好調なのです。 Smith & Wesson, the largest U.S. gun manufacturer, their stock price increased 10 percent by the time the market opened the day after Orlando. What’s going on? The answer is that the industry occupies a very unique place in American culture. It’s almost insulated from business pressures because of a law that was passed in Congress in 2005, meaning that if somebody wanted to bring a lawsuit, they couldn’t do it now. Smith & Wessonという最大の米国銃メーカーは株価が10%上昇しました。オーランドの翌日市場が開けた時までの数字です。何が起きているのでしょう。その答えはこの産業はアメリカ文化で非常に特殊な位置を占めていることにあります。ビジネスへの圧力からほとんど無縁なのです。それは2005年に議会で成立した法律によるものです。訴訟を起こしたくてもできなくなっているんです。 It’s very hard to do it. One of the things we heard in the segment was about this lawsuit in Connecticut, and that lawsuit is enormously important, because what it’s going to try to do is to figure out if the gun industry today, which has basically been able to profit in the period in which mass shootings have elevated the fear, have elevated people’s desire to own a gun for self-defense, whether in fact the kinds of civil cases that have in the past have shaped industry’s behavior, whether we’re talking about BP, for instance, with oil, or whether we’re talking about tobacco and how they market, whether in fact they will be shaped by their role in these kinds of national tragedies. 実行に移すのがとても難しいのです。この分野で耳にすることの一つにコネティカット州の訴訟があります。非常に重要な訴訟です。というのも目指しているものが今日の銃産業は、基本的に銃乱射事件によって不安が高まっている時期に利益を得ることができているのですが、自己防衛で銃を所有したいという人々の願望を高めてきたのかどうかを見定めることにあります。実際この種の過去にあった民事訴訟が産業の取り組みを形作ってきたかどうか、BPについて話せば、石油についてですが、タバコについて話せば、どのように売り出しているのか。これらはこのような全国規模の悲劇での役割によって形作られていくものなのか。
********
GWEN IFILL: Fascinating. Evan, in your piece in “The New Yorker,” you talk about concealed-carry laws, which, among other things, has driven up the number of guns that have been sold, as has multiple gun ownership. One person can buy, can own eight guns. And that’s happening more and more. 素晴らしいです。 Evan。The New Yorkerの記事では銃携帯の法律を取り上げています。とりわけ、この法律が銃の販売数を押し上げています。複数の銃を携帯できるからです。一人当たり8丁の銃を購入・所有できるのです。ますますこのようなことが起きています。 EVAN OSNOS: Right. This is the thing we don’t often talk about, which is that the biggest change that’s gone on in the culture of guns and the business of guns over the last generation is that you can now legally carry them in all kinds of places you simply couldn’t before. Two decades ago, you simply couldn’t leave your house in many states, 22 states. It was either illegal or restricted regulated to go outside with a gun. It’s now legal in all 50 states. And this is really the beginning, I think, not the end, of a kind of national political conversation about whether or not we are ready for that, whether or not people accept that and where they accept that. このことについてあまり話し合われません。これこそが最近の銃文化、銃ビジネスで起きた最大の変化で、合法的にどんな場所でも銃を携帯できるようになったのです。以前は不可能でした。20年前は家を離れることはできなかったのです。これは多くの州、22の州でそうでした。銃を携帯して外出することは違法もしくは制限されていたのです。今では50州すべて合法です。これはまさに始まりだと思います。終わりではないのです。全国で政治的な話し合いのようなものをすべきです。我々は受け入れることができるのか、受け入れる場所はどうするのか。 One of the reasons I think why the court has been reluctant to weigh in to what everybody agrees is probably the next great frontier in Second Amendment law, which is where can you carry and why, is because you see these radical differences in place to place. And so far, what has happened is that the courts have basically said we’re going to leave it to these local governments, state governments and lower governments to decide who can carry a gun and why. 裁判所が皆が合意するものを考慮することに乗り気ではない理由には憲法修正第二条の次の大きな未開拓分野があると思います。どこで携帯できるのかそれはどうしてか、場所によって大きな違いがあるからです。今までのところ起きているのは、裁判所が基本的に述べていることは、これは地方自治体や州政府などの低位の政府機関に任せますので、誰が銃を携帯できるか、それはどうしてかということを決めてくださいというものです。
謝罪しなくてよかったといっているDavid Brooks。その反応は予想できますがHe avoided mention of who actually started the war, which was diplomatic.とも語っていますね。
I was glad he didn’t apologize. I think, on balance, the decision was the right one. He elliptically avoided that. He avoided mention of who actually started the war, which was diplomatic. And then, you know, as we heard earlier, he held out the hope of getting rid of nuclear weapons. I’m glad, as a matter of policy, he hasn’t done much about it. He’s reduced nuclear stockpiles less than the two Bush administrations did. And I think that’s just reflecting of the dangerousness of the world.
