Subtext.

The whole “violent names” bit in regards to guns is part of the agenda, is disingenuous and immoral to keep the farce going as much as Gawker pushes the agenda for the left

You're a moron.

The fuck does that have to do with anything? Names like Remington, Colt, etc. we’re names long before they were synonymous with guns.

Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t “Barrett, Remington, Kimber, Ruger, Wesson, Browning, Benelli and Beretta” also names given to people?

That’s just ridiculous, I live in Colombia and plenty of people get stabbed here daily (allot of them dying) by some crook trying to get their phone and wallet. In this country we live your gunless dream of a society and guess what... allot of those crooks also have guns, we have more hitmen (who have serious assault…

Wait a second.

Not tech related. Gizmodo, cut the nonsense. If you want to write about non-tech issues, find a different audience on another site. Keep your political opinions to yourself. I don’t come here for anything other than tech. Your writer’s opinions on anything else fall on deaf ears. I don’t go to tech experts to learn…

Although I’d never name my kids after guns, the whole gawker being “anti gun” gives me very creepy political agenda vibes. Surely journalists as smart as you Leah can realize that banning weapons, isn’t going to solve the underlying social and economic problems that cause violence. Someone who wants to kill people…

Please stop telling people how to live their lives.

Hey Leah, do something next week about parents who name their kids after Star Wars characters. It’s timely.