I doubt that it can be traced back to one specific person. Whoever first said it publicly most likely heard it somewhere before they spoke it themselves. This and the saying, "Guns don't kill people, bullets do."
2007-06-04 08:31:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The term was coined by Vernor Vinge.
Attitudes towards Technology
I distinguish three basic attitudes towards technology:
The technolaters see technology as a wonderful thing, and have an almost religious devotion to it.For example, the Singularity Action Group:
The mission of the Singularity Action Group is to promote a Singularity for the good of mankind through public education and direct action in the development of Singularity technologies. We believe that everyone can help make the Singularity a success. As our name implies, talk is good but action is better... he Singularity Action Group was formed to address the social transition of the Singularity. The Singularity will herald the beginning of a new age in which physical and mental perfection will be the norm along with unimaginable wealth and freedom. These benefits will accrue not just to the current privileged classes but to every human being.
The technophobes dislike technological progress and in some cases even advocate undoing technological civilization. For example, the Coalition against Civilization:
We are a loose coalition of anarchists for the destruction of civilization and for the defense of wildness. We exist to help strengthen the strictly antiauthoritarian anarchist movement and work with all other like-minded organizations. We feel that society in general is in a crucial point where the overall disgust for daily life is reaching a new high point everyday. It would seem that antiauthoritarian would be all the more appealing to larger majorities, so the widening of our reach as anarchists requires more efforts to spread information and more ways to keep up on current debates as well as information regarding direct actions.
Finally, there are the technoneutralists who assert that technology is neither good nor bad, but becomes so depending on our use of it. This attitude is often expressed with the knife argument:
Those who believe that technology is neutral argue that "guns don't kill people, people do", or that a knife can be used to "cook, kill, or cure."
http://dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/cat_society.html
2007-06-09 02:36:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Don't know who started saying it but this is interesting:
Myth: Guns don't kill people, people do.
Fact: Both guns and people kill; guns make it easier.
Summary
This sound bite misses the point; people are indeed ultimately responsible for pulling the trigger, but the national murder rate would surely fall if widespread gun availability didn't make it so incredibly easy to kill another human being.
Argument
This frequent pro-gun slogan is something that, upon reflection, seems entirely true. But it's not.
In actuality, the first half of this slogan is demonstrably false; guns do indeed kill people. But the point that the gun lobby is surely trying to make is that they do not kill people by themselves; they require a human to pull the trigger.
This argument is an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that guns make it much easier to kill people. Guns do this in two ways: enhanced ability and feasibility. We can see the enhanced ability from suicide statistics: the most successful suicide attempts are those that involve firearms. And this greater ability also makes murder feasible in a greater number of circumstances. To anyone entertaining murderous impulses, a gun makes it feasible to attack larger people, multiple people, people from a distance, from secrecy, etc. No one in their right mind would try to rob a bank with a knife. But a gun inspires confidence of success in a would-be bank robber, allowing a crime to occur when it wouldn't have otherwise.
Gun control advocates argue that a certain, extremely small percentage of the populace is actively contemplating murder at any given time, and would if they could. They argue the murder rate would drop if these would-be murderers did not possess the enhanced ability and feasibility provided by guns. The above pro-gun slogan responds to this argument illogically, by making an irrelevant point.
A wit once described this irrelevancy thus: "Fingers don't kill people, bullets do."
2007-06-04 08:31:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by Michael N 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it was Jack the Ripper as he preferred the knife. It actually came out of the late 60's when the Jane Fonda type nut jobs started in on the right to bear arms.
2007-06-10 10:14:21
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The National Rifle Association (NRA)
2007-06-04 08:29:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
John Dillenger?
2007-06-04 08:28:50
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
It was said by David Edmusonton just before a crate of Smith and Westons fell on his head.
2007-06-04 08:29:34
·
answer #7
·
answered by philip_jones2003 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Tim Furgerson
Written 5 Dec 2016
If I remember correctly it was an adaptation from: “Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est” — Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger" ca. (4 BC - 65 AD)
("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands")
2017-04-10 19:47:13
·
answer #8
·
answered by Wanda 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I like the one better "Guns don't kill people. I kill people."
I'm guessing that the NRA came up with it.
2007-06-04 08:29:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
That phrase was coined by Andrew Ross
2007-06-04 08:29:30
·
answer #10
·
answered by no2illegals 3
·
1⤊
2⤋