Not everyone is going to agree with me on, well, anything. I accept that because that’s just how people are. Even if I make a pronouncement like the sky is blue, someone will argue that it’s overcast where they are, thus disproving my statement.

Anti-gunners are obviously going to disagree with me about a lot for obvious reasons.

I accept that people will view guns and gun rights differently from me. What I won’t accept, though, is ignoring facts in order to try and make your point.

That’s what one anti-gun piece recently did.

A Texas “gun enthusiast,” Francisco Oropeza, 39, was firing off his AR-15 in his yard Friday night, April 30th, about 40 miles from Houston. He was known to be touchy, so, despite the noise and danger, no one approached him. Finally, after 11 p.m., his neighbor did. He said something like, “Hey, man, can you not do that? We’ve got an infant in here trying to sleep.”

So, in America, what does a righteous gun owner do when his rights, his dignity, and his command over his own property are threatened by such outrageous demands? Of course, Oropeza marches to the offending neighbor’s home and bravely stands up for his Second Amendment rights. He shoots most of the family dead — five of them, including an 8-year old. Two smaller children were saved by their mothers shielding them with their bodies, and of course that was just an extra affront to the intrepid rifle owner, who shot both women dead. As of this writing, Oropeza is apparently surrounded by law enforcement.

Of course, the author then goes on to bring up Waco and how Texas tends to be a little sensitive about gun control because of that, and so on.

However, he forgot to mention one key point in his discussion of this “gun enthusiast.”

He forgot to mention that as an illegal immigrant, Oropeza couldn’t lawfully own a firearm. His status as being here illegally also meant he was illegally owning a firearm.

It’s one thing to try and make anti-gun points. It’s another to pretend this was just some law-abiding gun owner with his lawfully-owned firearm who didn’t take kindly to being approached and flipped out, killing five people.

That’s not at all what’s on the table here.

Instead, we have a prohibited person who knew they couldn’t lawfully obtain a firearm do so anyway, then killed his neighbors because they asked him to stop shooting.

This was a criminal who undermines the gun control anti-gunners love so much. He showed how utterly useless they are at what they’re supposed to stop–bad people from getting guns.

Opting to leave that part out and present this as a law-abiding gun owner isn’t likely to be an act of ignorance, either. It’s difficult to miss that the killer was identified as an illegal immigrant pretty early in the process and a lot of discussion surrounded this fact.

If he didn’t know it, then he really shouldn’t be offering up opinions on guns at all.

What’s more, if you won’t include such a basic fact so as to confuse your readers, what else are you misrepresenting?