> Approximately nobody who reads "killed by an AK-47" understands this to mean anything besides "killed by a person firing an AK-47". To be fair, there are peo

> Approximately nobody who reads "killed by an AK-47" understands this to mean anything besides "killed by a person firing an AK-47". To be fair, there are people like Piers Morgan and such that are effectively making statements that all but insinuate the gun as the responsible party. I don't disagree that the OPs distinction is unnecessary to reasonable people, but on both sides of the argument, where guns are concerned, arguments are not necessarily reasonable, and I wouldn't fault him too terribly for trying to enforce clarity in the discussion.