| ▲ | ok_dad 3 hours ago |
| Would you say, “Automobile run amok in crowd, killing 22”? I think you’d say, “Person drives car into crowd, killing 12” instead. This is a similar case. Also, you don’t blame a gun for killing, but the person who pulled the trigger. The question is still out as to whether we as humans should wield any of those three things. Edit: let’s not get into ideological arguments about gun control, automobiles, etc here; I meant that you can’t blame an object when a human has to take an action, not get into a political battle. |
|
| ▲ | jacobolus 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > you don’t blame a gun for killing, but the person who pulled the trigger This is famously the slogan of the pro-gun lobby (funded by gun manufacturers and merchants), who want the society to be awash with guns because they're profiting from it but don't want to be blamed for the consequences. The counterpoint is that when we get rid of most of the guns we also end up substantially eliminating the killings. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_don't_kill_people%2C_peop... |
| |
| ▲ | matwood 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | IMO both things are true. The person pulled the trigger, and less guns mean fewer gun deaths. | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > This is famously the slogan of the pro-gun lobby It's also the view of anyone who hasn't been driven mad by propaganda. Regardless of your political views a tool is a tool at the end of the day. Attempting to anthropomorphize a category of objects in order to shift blame all for the sake of furthering an agenda is plainly bad faith behavior. I'm not a fan of bike lanes with zero separation from automobiles but that doesn't mean it's appropriate or even remotely plausible to blame cars for killing cyclists. Inattentive drivers and poor road design are what kill them. As tempted as I am to cast about for a third highly divisive subject to bait people with, perhaps we could avoid blatantly dragging the conversation towards off topic tired political talking points? | | |
| ▲ | applfanboysbgon 11 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > the view of anyone who hasn't been driven mad by propaganda Are you suggesting that the entire population of the EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc. are driven mad by propaganda? The default position in the vast majority of the world is the one you're describing as "mad". | |
| ▲ | coldtea 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A phrase like "who hasn't been driven mad by propaganda" doesn't exactly sound like impationately discussing the issue either. | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Calling a zealot a zealot does not mean that one is incapable of discussing the underlying topic. We must not let the desire to converse intelligently hamstring our ability to call out obviously corrupt patterns of thought for what they are. Anyway my above reply was hardly the appropriate venue to engage in a genuine manner on that topic. The parent was blatantly derailing things by inserting his pet political issue. That sort of behavior undermines the community and so (IMO) should not be indulged. |
| |
| ▲ | antonvs an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Blindly repeating superficial slogans seems like a good candidate for “driven mad by propaganda.” At the very least, it’s what people do when they are amplifying a position for ideological reasons, not contributing in good faith. | |
| ▲ | taneq 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | People without guns kill a lot fewer people than people with guns. Claiming that acknowledging this fact means you’ve been “driven mad by propaganda” is dumb. | | |
| ▲ | db48x a minute ago | parent | next [-] | | This is not true; there are quite a few people with guns who have never killed anyone, and quite a few people without guns who found a way to kill someone anyway. Poison, knives, hammers, rocks, windows, their bare hands. You name it someone has killed someone with it. | |
| ▲ | rmunn 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Let's just stop this conversation right here before it derails into ideological battle. | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | No I think we should definitely find a creative way to drag at least abortion and freedom of speech into this "conversation". Fight fire with fire so to speak. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | srdjanr 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There's a difference between the driver intentionally driving into crowd, and not intentionally but possibly still recklessly (drifting and losing control, falling asleep, etc). In those cases I would probably use "car hits the crowd", at least in my language |
|
| ▲ | tikkabhuna 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Neither the automobile nor a gun can operate without a human. You could say “bull runs amok in a market” after it was released intentionally. |
| |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | So the agent is exhibiting an unknown amount of autonomy thus we can't be certain whether "running amok" carries the correct connotation. However that phrasing is also commonly used when a person or group wreaks havoc in a seemingly unpredictable manner. So I think the appropriateness comes down to how much chaos it has created and the level of apparent confusion on the ground. |
|
|
| ▲ | coldtea 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >Would you say, “Automobile run amok in crowd, killing 22”? I think you’d say, “Person drives car into crowd, killing 12” instead. If the automobile was "self driving" I would. >Also, you don’t blame a gun for killing, but the person who pulled the trigger. Nah, I also blame guns and appreciate gun control laws. |
| |
|
| ▲ | PhilipRoman 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Ironically news outlets like to use the phrasing you rightfully point out as absurd. Not sure if they just do it randomly or only when they get orders to push a certain narrative. >Car plows into Christmas market in Germany, killing at least 5 and injuring 200 |
