Terrible irony?

Why don’t they get it? They can’t possible understand the issue if they think this makes sense:

The terrible irony is that where there are more guns, there is more opposition to gun control.

Just change “gun” to “mixed race marriages”, “homosexuals”, or “Jews”. Then tell me again about the irony.


10 thoughts on “Terrible irony?

  1. Your word substitution is still silly.

    The Canadian tragedy of 20 years ago proves that guns are bad news for women, even in peaceful Canad.

  2. The irony is that the gun-banners do not realize that my guns, and all the guns in the hands of peaceful citizens, help to protect them as much as the owners of the guns. The (smart) goblins don’t know who to target (or not) so they generally leave. All this, while the gun-banners attempt to remove the very thing that protects them.

    As for the Canadian massacre, obviously too many guns in the wrong hands, and not enough guns in the right hands. Such is the nature and unintended consequences of gub’ment control. See also: Virginia Tech Institute massacre. One handgun in the right hands would have stopped both massacres very early, and saved many lives. Cross-reference: No-Longer-Great-Britian and Australia gun control vs crime rates.

  3. Woodman, Gun Banners like MikeB and Paul Helmke, and Josh Sugarmann et al know perfectly well your guns keep them safe, and they want to ban them anyway. Bans cause more death, more death gives them more chances to raise money and push their agenda. They hope this will give them more control.

    They’re evil and we need to stop them.

  4. “Having spent six years fighting for a strong gun law and another 14 to preserve it, I acknowledge that our problem is not just the vocal gun lobby and its political allies.”

    But the author won’t admit “the problem” is the bad person with a gun, knife, bomb, poison, vehicle or other impliment with which to kill another human being.

  5. It would appear from the incident referenced that a lack of guns was extremely “bad news” for women, mikeb. Are you some kind of misanthrope? The problem they had was not too many guns, but not enough.

    Proof of that? In peaceful Canada why were these women not saved by law enforcement? Another gun or two in their hands would have saved at least a majority of them and possibly all of them. Why do you support their deaths as appropriate? that is what you are doing.

    Do you have murderous fantasies of your own? It would appear that you do.

  6. “…where there are more guns, there is more opposition to gun control.”

    Of course. Where there are more guns, there is more understanding of guns.

  7. Also, Lyle, where there are more guns there is always less urgent need of them.

Comments are closed.