4 ms·

Leave it to HN to completely ignore the point of the article and nitpick statistics. Guns kill more people than terrorism, period. Regardless of the actual numb

Leave it to HN to completely ignore the point of the article and nitpick statistics. Guns kill more people than terrorism, period. Regardless of the actual numbers, the article's point still stands.

grzm 10y ago
Please don't generalize HN like this, particularly as you choose to participate in the community. If you have specific criticisms, please address them civilly.
- cooper12 10y ago
  I'm not generalizing, the proof is right in this thread, the top comments are all focusing on the specific numbers and completely missing the point. And that is a specific criticism.
  - grzm 10y ago
    No subset of commenters represent all of HN. There are a wide variety of positions held by members of the HN community. Failing to recognize that is just as much "missing the point" as that of which you accuse these commenters. No matter how wrong you think others may be, please take extra care when commenting on contentious topics.
morganvachon 10y ago
> Guns kill more people than terrorism, period. People with guns kill more people than terrorism. Guns aren't sentient (yet). Guns are inanimate tools; it's a people problem, not a tool problem. Just as you wouldn't say that cars kill people and try to ban cars when it's actually irresponsible drivers (drunk, inattentive, etc) that cause the accident, you can't blame an inanimate object for what its user does with it. Shifting the blame is a political maneuver as old as mankind.
- cooper12 10y ago
  You're only proving my point by nitpicking further. Pedantry isn't a virtue, especially in assuming I'm so stupid as to anthropomorphize a piece of metal or trying to utilize a political maneuver. Focus on the article instead of nitpicking.
- arjie 10y ago
  Assuming you're not a native speaker, that's an example of synecdoche. Just like The White House does not issue proclamations (it refers to the person occupying the office of the President, who occupies The White House). One could also say, "The suits are coming for your money." but articles of clothing do not, as a rule, walk around robbing people. Anyway, I'm pro-gun, but 'guns' kill people is just saying that gun users kill people with guns.
  - morganvachon 10y ago
    The issue is that anti-2nd Amendment folks always want to simply ban guns period, as if that will make the problem go away, hence they use the term "guns kill people". They literally fear the gun itself, not the person holding the gun, and that's a serious problem. The people who say "the White House" in your example indeed don't blame the building for what goes on inside, however the people who chant "guns kill people" invariably believe that the gun itself is to blame, rather than the person behind it. It's irrational and nonsensical, but go into any debate about gun issues and you'll see it all day long. I recall recently seeing a video (by a progressive minded producer) who laid out several "mean" looking guns (black synthetic stock, picatinny rail, etc) that were actually low power, single shot or limited capacity target guns (one was a BB gun), next to old-fashioned looking but semi-automatic and high powered rifles much more capable of harming large groups of people. Invariably the gun hating types picked out the less harmful weapons as "scary" and said they shouldn't be produced, while they were not nearly as frightened of the wooden stock weapons designed to shoot up to thirty rounds in as many seconds before reloading.

Leave it to HN to completely ignore the point of the article and nitpick statistics. Guns kill more people than terrorism, period. Regardless of the actual numbers, the article's point still stands.

grzm 10y ago

Please don't generalize HN like this, particularly as you choose to participate in the community. If you have specific criticisms, please address them civilly.

cooper12 10y ago
I'm not generalizing, the proof is right in this thread, the top comments are all focusing on the specific numbers and completely missing the point. And that is a specific criticism.
- grzm 10y ago
  No subset of commenters represent all of HN. There are a wide variety of positions held by members of the HN community. Failing to recognize that is just as much "missing the point" as that of which you accuse these commenters. No matter how wrong you think others may be, please take extra care when commenting on contentious topics.

morganvachon 10y ago

> Guns kill more people than terrorism, period. People with guns kill more people than terrorism. Guns aren't sentient (yet). Guns are inanimate tools; it's a people problem, not a tool problem. Just as you wouldn't say that cars kill people and try to ban cars when it's actually irresponsible drivers (drunk, inattentive, etc) that cause the accident, you can't blame an inanimate object for what its user does with it. Shifting the blame is a political maneuver as old as mankind.

cooper12 10y ago
You're only proving my point by nitpicking further. Pedantry isn't a virtue, especially in assuming I'm so stupid as to anthropomorphize a piece of metal or trying to utilize a political maneuver. Focus on the article instead of nitpicking.
arjie 10y ago
Assuming you're not a native speaker, that's an example of synecdoche. Just like The White House does not issue proclamations (it refers to the person occupying the office of the President, who occupies The White House). One could also say, "The suits are coming for your money." but articles of clothing do not, as a rule, walk around robbing people. Anyway, I'm pro-gun, but 'guns' kill people is just saying that gun users kill people with guns.
- morganvachon 10y ago
  The issue is that anti-2nd Amendment folks always want to simply ban guns period, as if that will make the problem go away, hence they use the term "guns kill people". They literally fear the gun itself, not the person holding the gun, and that's a serious problem. The people who say "the White House" in your example indeed don't blame the building for what goes on inside, however the people who chant "guns kill people" invariably believe that the gun itself is to blame, rather than the person behind it. It's irrational and nonsensical, but go into any debate about gun issues and you'll see it all day long. I recall recently seeing a video (by a progressive minded producer) who laid out several "mean" looking guns (black synthetic stock, picatinny rail, etc) that were actually low power, single shot or limited capacity target guns (one was a BB gun), next to old-fashioned looking but semi-automatic and high powered rifles much more capable of harming large groups of people. Invariably the gun hating types picked out the less harmful weapons as "scary" and said they shouldn't be produced, while they were not nearly as frightened of the wooden stock weapons designed to shoot up to thirty rounds in as many seconds before reloading.