
Flagged-dead really quickly? - angersock
This seemed like a fair article, and had 26 votes quite quickly before being censored:<p>https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=15402460<p>Cmon folks.
======
nostrademons
I vouched for it the first time it was flagged-dead, because it shows a person
who held one belief, looked at the data, and then _revised her belief_ based
on that data, something that I think we should all do more often. And then she
communicated her findings, lucidly and IMHO persuasively (the fivethirtyeight
article it was based on is also great). It was momentarily revived but flagged
dead again within 2 minutes.

Unfortunately, looking at the comments, I'm beginning to think the flagging
was appropriate. It seems that this community _can 't_ discuss the topic
calmly and rationally - both sides just brought their preconceptions into the
topic and assumed they were correct and anyone who said otherwise was wrong.
In that case, I think flagging is the correct response.

~~~
masonic

      looking at the comments, I'm beginning to think the flagging was appropriate
    

Flagging/downvoting the _comments_ would be appropriate in that case; the
_article_ should stand on its own merit.

------
iamNumber4
There is no debate, Guns are legal in this country. We must be able to defend
ourselves from all threats both foreign and domestic, having access to the
same level that our military employs.

Guns do not kill people. Unstable disturbed people kill people. It is not the
tool used to cause death, it's the person that wields it. We still haven't
solved a core problem of our species, but we have invented easier ways to kill
each other.

Stop blaming the Guns, bombs, swords, sticks and stones. start looking at the
real problem.

