Thursday 3 June 2010

A gunless ninja would easily have killed as many, insists gun lobby


Following the tragic deaths of twelve people at the hands of gun-wielding Derrick Bird, gun enthusiasts everywhere have insisted his gun access is irrelevant as the death toll could have been higher if he’d been a ninja.

Bird, 52, killed twelve, and injured eleven more using weapons which he was legally entitled to own.

Pro-gun spokesperson Shane Meadows, 35 explained, “Guns are not the problem, guns don’t kill people, guns merely give people easy access to an efficient mechanism by which to kill people.  It’s a subtle, yet very important distinction.”

“If Derrick Bird had been a highly skilled ninja and set about killing people, would there be calls to ban karate schools?  I doubt it.”

“What we actually need are more guns.  If everyone was armed, he would have been dead shortly after firing his first shot as five or six passers by looked to take him out with weapons of their own.”

“Sure, we’d have lost a few of them in the crossfire, but I’m pretty sure the death toll would have been less than twelve.  Probably.”

Legislation

The disaster has already led to calls for tighter controls over taxi-driving gun owners.

One campaigner told us, “There is absolutely no reason why a taxi driver should own a gun, and now at least 23 excellent reasons why they shouldn’t.”

“You wouldn’t put a deadly weapon in the hands of a frustrated call centre-worker, would you?”

“I think the obvious first ‘red flag’ when looking to assess the people who want to buy a gun, should be the fact that they actually want to buy a gun.”

“We like to think it would be a much safer society if we passed one simple law, which ensured that the only people allowed to own a gun are those people that absolutely don’t want one.”

There are currently witterings below - why not add your own?

Previous post:

Next post: