It doesn't need to be a moral distinction. When negative statements are made neutrally, discussion goes much better than when they are made pejoratively. This entire site, if not the entire internet, is evidence of that.
Let's start by agreeing that "Americans" and "American people" are equivalent, at least when discussing statistical facts about populations. Then the two sentences can be rewritten as:
"the homicide rate amongst the American people is much higher than amongst the Swiss"
and
"American people are more homicidal than the swiss"
or taking out the nouns:
"the X rate amongst Y is much higher than amongst the Z"
vs
"Y is more X than Z"
which I am 100% sure, if put to people in a neutral poll, would be considered the same.
But I'm also mystified as to the wider goal. TheDong admits the two constructions are similar, yet his reaction is extreme - one is fine and the other triggers calls for banning people completely, labels of "hateful and divisive" and so on. That kind of unpredictable and over the top behaviour triggered by almost non-existent differences in phrasing is negative to Hacker News, and clearly violates the various guidelines about reading what people say in good faith, let alone the one about reacting to the strongest possible interpretation!
Given that TheDong knows how similar they are, one must wonder what the purpose of treating them so differently is.
I would not be fine with the similar, but different phrase "American people are more homicidal than the swiss", assuming no further context.
One of those is clearly meant to discuss a fact. The other is meant to play up nationalistic tensions.
I know negative generalizations can be supported by fact. I'm fine with those facts being presented and discussed, I'm just not fine with the facts being obscured and rephrased such that it serves more to create a climate of racism and nationalism.
Context and phrasing do matter, especially when it comes to hateful and divisive speech.