The Cato Institute is taking Washington D.C.’s handgun ban to court. There are people who actually argue that allowing law abiding citizens to have handguns in D.C. would cause more deaths, but I don’t believe that is actually possible since, if the murder rate were any higher, then the murderers would be killing each other causing violent crime to level off. While I think challenging the law in court is a good idea, I propose an even more dynamic idea to fight for gun rights. What the NRA should adopt is a policy of shooting people who disagree with them. It’s a much simpler solution than trying to force logic on to people who are apparently morally opposed to it.
“If we limit gun purchases to one a month, that will stop murders.”
BANG!
“Convoluted statistics show you’re more likely to shoot yourself than blah blah blah.”
BANG! BANG! BANG!
“If we make a gun free school zone, that will stop people from shooting children.”
STAB! BANG! (that gun had a bayonet)
I don’t care how idiotic an argument or how much statistics someone can produce, it won’t stop a bullet. The only rebuttal to a gun is another gun, but if gun control nuts starting using guns, they lose their argument. So, shooting people who are for gun control both defeats them physically and philosophically. See, isn’t this a brilliant, win-win idea? I don’t know why someone hasn’t used it yet. Well, I guess some people would say it’s not right to shoot people, but they wouldn’t say that if I had a gun pointed at them. Makes you think, doesn’t it?