Gun control advocates like to pretend that the facts are on their side. Of course, we also know that the research they like to push has…let’s just say it has problems.

The truth of the matter is that there is a tendency among the anti-Second Amendment types to simply ignore anything inconvenient. When the polls say that the public no longer supports infringements on our right to keep and bear arms, they simply cite older polls that tell them what they wanted to hear in the first place, just to name one example.

But I came across another example.

It comes from a letter to the editor of the LA Times and is a prime example of how your rank and file anti-gunner will present only the details that bolster their argument.

To the editor: The recent killing of a 4-year-old in his car during a road-rage incident is just the latest tragedy that shreds the idiotic argument that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

…

We need more restrictions on gun sales, fewer guns in the public’s hands and laws that advance these objectives. Voting out every politician who supports guns at the expense of humans is a necessity.

Now, road rage is a legitimate issue. People’s anger, in general, is a legitimate issue. That means a four-year-old child being killed in a road rage incident is beyond a tragedy.

But would more restrictions on gun sales actually do anything? On first blush, based on the facts presented in this letter to the editor, it might suggest that maybe they would.

Except that there’s more to the story.

A man has been charged with murder in the killing of a 4-year-old boy who was shot during a suspected road rage incident while sitting in the back seat of his family’s car in Lancaster, California, last week, authorities said.

The suspect, 29-year-old Byron Burkhart, also faces two counts of attempted murder, one count of shooting at an occupied vehicle and five counts of possession of a firearm by a felon, according to the criminal complaint obtained by CNN.

Burkhart was traveling with his girlfriend on December 15 when he allegedly cut off a vehicle carrying the boy and his parents, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office said Tuesday in a news release.

Possession of a firearm by a felon.

That’s illegal everywhere. Under federal law, a felon cannot buy a gun. NICS checks bar him from buying a gun in a gun store and California has universal background checks, which means he didn’t lawfully buy it from some person unaware of his history.

No, he had to obtain it illegally from the start, either from stealing the gun or buying it from a black market dealer.

Funny how the letter writer left that part out, isn’t it?

See, I generally don’t get too in the weeds on letters to the editor because these aren’t generally those who shape how the public thinks on these issues. It might change a couple of minds, but rarely does more than give people an idea of what the public thinks.

In theory, anyway.

Yet it does help us illustrate just how little inconvenient facts matter to an anti-gun argument. They’ll just leave those out because clearly, they don’t matter.

They do, though.

This letter writer is pushing for making it harder to get guns, all in an effort to reduce the number of guns in circulation–meaning there’s bound to be a step where guns are going to be confiscated, at least in their mind–yet doesn’t want you to realize that restricting guns as they’ve already done in California didn’t stop this from happening. This is someone they’re supposed to have stopped, but they didn’t.

Because criminals don’t follow the law. They never have and they never will.

Kind of like how anti-gunners don’t acknowledge any fact that runs counter to their beliefs.