Hacker News Reader

Comment by duck | Hacker News Reader

I really dislike how people take a moment of silence and/or a time for prayer, and turn it into something else with the linked article on gun control[1]. Talking about actions is fine, but why can't people understand that those are two different things and shouldn't happen at the exact same time.

[1]: http://www.causes.com/causes/807161-stand-with-sandy-hook/ac...

View on HN

This is the first mass shooting in a long time that is sparking action. That's a good thing; the countries' aversion to discussing gun control may be part of the reason we are having a moment of silence to begin with.

I think of it as "let us honor their deaths with meaningful action rather than cheap words".

It dishonors the memory of the murdered to politicize their deaths.

If you don't talk about these things when they happen, everybody soon just forgets the issue until the next incident.

There was a whole week where talking about the issue seemed to be everywhere -- that's a bit different from tying it to the "moment of silence" now. And it should continue over the next weeks/months.

If fixing the problem that caused their deaths is "political" I don't think the murdered would mind.

If everyone agreed on what the fix is, you might be right. But since they don't, and it will likely result in political fighting, it's probably not appropriate to tie it to a moment of silence.

If it takes a discussion with people taking opposing viewpoints, let's get started. Now.

But please not on Hacker News. Thanks.

I'd agree generally except that posting an inherently political call to action on the site essentially makes it the natural forum to discuss it.

And, the tech community (specifically, Ron Conway) are probably the strongest promoters of this particular program right now, which is interesting given that the tech community has rarely been politically influential. At most it has been able to address things like crypto, CDA, and SOPA/PIPA; minimally effective so far at patents and immigration.

The last time legislation was posted in a knee-jerk fashion was 2001. Are you a fan of the Patriot Act?

Nothing will be lost by having a sensible discussion and resisting the urge to pass whatever half-baked legislation gets written up the quickest.

Even the NRA is (unsurprisingly) a supporter of 'gun violence prevention'. This moment of silence isn't advocating any specific solution, I don't see the controversy. I think almost every reasonable person can agree with "let's stop gun violence".

Let's stop death!

It is advocating the specific 3 proposals (100% NCIC checks on all transfers, criminalizing federally straw purchases, and 10rd magazine restrictions and AWB), actually.

(EDIT: I guess that's Demand a Plan, but they're being promoted by exactly the same set of people in all the same places, and Demand a Plan includes the moment of silence, so it seems fair to consider them the same thing.)

None of that is mentioned in the linked page or the pledge. What I see is:

>In the coming weeks and months, we must come together around common-sense solutions that will prevent the gun violence that has become all too frequent in communities across the country. We welcome everyone to this dialogue—we want to hear from gun owners who think it's time for a change as well as folks who are still on the fence.

From some quick google searching it seems you are referring to the different "demand a plan" campaign. That was never linked to in this moment of silence.

edit: to your edit, I'm pretty sure it's a different group of people, even if they are related.

Edit to edit: you're right based on what it says now. I could swear that yesterday there was a more clear link between the two -- I really think it has been edited.

Also, they seem to be somewhat more open to gun owners talking to them. I do not remember the "we want to hear from gun owners" line being there.

If I'm misremembering, that's my fault, but if they actually responded to criticism and edited their message/approach to be more inclusive, I'm impressed. They probably have 30-50% of gun owners supporting them anyway, but could get to 70-80% by being rational about specific policies they want.

Yeah, that's kind of what I meant.

"It's what the victims would have wanted" turns them into a cipher for your political cause.

(I'm personally an NRA member and about as pro-gun as you can be ... but I'm sure there are many reasonable compromises that gun lovers can make in terms of lawful gun regulation. Our goal can be to ensure crazy people have reduced access to the guns that should only be in the hands of law-abiding sane people)

Tell that to folks murdered over political reasons.

May I never mistake a child's coffin for a political soapbox.

That is well put.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com