Yes, these are stupid questions, but they make as much sense as the entire controversy of whether the gorilla should have been killed to save a human child.
Here's how it went:
At the Cincinnati Zoo, a 4-year-old child entered the enclosure of the gorilla's habitat and fell into the moat. Spectators began screaming and the boy's mother called for help on the phone. The gorilla, named Harambe, began dragging the child by the ankle and the zookeeper, Thane Maynard, said that in his assessment, the boy was in imminent danger.
A stun-gun would have taken at least 15 minutes to tranquilize the agitated gorilla, if, in fact, it would stun him at all. There was no time to wait as the level of agitation grew and the animal began acting erratically.
"This child was being dragged around and his head was banging on the concrete. This was not a gentle thing," Maynard said. He added that social media criticism was "Monday morning quarterbacking."
Of course it was, and the truth is, twitter critics and others can always find something to complain and rant over. They are mostly liberals who bravely hide behind their computer screens and have opinions about everything and factual knowledge about nothing.
So the "Don't kill an innocent gorilla," and "the kid fell into the gorillia's home," are based upon the lack of knowledge and compassion for the child because the child isn't theirs and they are basing their self-righteous indignation on blatant ignorance because they simply weren't there.
If that was their child, I suspect they would be screaming, "Shoot it! Shoot it!"
Rather than complain about the 70 Chicago shootings that occurred over the same weekend, this was a far easier battle for them to wage. And those are their favorite kind.