Oddly, there's a similar discussion here:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-latest-gorilla-attac,30860/

...I thought it was...

...I usually find The Onion funny but not this one...sorry, just my opinion...

OK, I respect that, but I’m interested why (as an intellectual, not political, exercise)?

You in general like the Onion, so I assume it’s not a question of comic STYLE; it’s content.

The content here is certainly silly (gorilla ownership) as is the twisted logical premise (if everyone owned a gorilla, no one would be attacked by a gorilla). That’s the core of any Onion article—making something serious seem silly. And in general, humor is found in the unexpected connections we make between what is presented and what we are lead to anticipate.

We find something funny when (a) we are surprised by the turn of events and (b) we make the connection between the expected and the unexpected. The laugh reflex IMO is a self-congratulatory response to understanding.

Since I am pretty sure you understand the connections to be made here, may I assume it’s not funny (to you) because you’re not surprised?

...I enjoy The Onion because it can make fun of things that happen and they are usually on the edge of being offensive without going over the line...my problem with this article?...the referencee to children being killed...I can't find the joke in that...it has nothing to do with the article itself...I thought it was very funny until then...I'm not trying to take a holier-than-thou approach to it, it's just my preference...

Again, I respect that.

There is usually something serious—unsettling even—in satire. That is what makes it what it is. Good satire leads to a better understanding amid the uneasiness. Maybe the best satire is when both understanding and angst are maximized. In that quarter I would agree, this article is far from the best of the genre.

...thanks for understanding my POV on the article...it still makes me uneasy with jokes about 9/11 but they don't have the impact on me as reading about crimes on children or attempts at comedy at their expense...

I don’t want to belabor the point nor dismiss your reaction, but I didn’t consider the children to be the fodder “spent” for the sake of humor—and I don’t think that’s because I’m not sensitive to tragedy.

The satirical target was logic. If I were to posit (facetiously) that “deterrence” is evidenced by the fact that since (almost!) everyone wears underpants, slaughter by these implements is extremely rare, I am mocking an inappropriate correlation/cause rubric, not asphyxia victims.

...believe me, I understand what you mean...and you could use the "underpants" in place of the "shoe bomber" and that would be funny someone trying to light their underpants on fire to blow up a plane...again, it's just me with the kids added to the article that stopped me from reading the whole thing...

You get the last word... I think. :-)

...ok... ;)

That's an excellent example of pretzel logic.

great album, btw! :P

Steely dan!

...I don't believe they are trying to take the guns away, they're just trying to limit the nut-cases that just what to shoot at the first sight of the unknown...I'd feel safer with a trained militia beside than some redneck with an AK in front of me...do I completely trust the government?...of course not...but too many people may start screaming "fire" in a building and causing a panic...so far, the arguement is about the nut-jobs shooting innocents...what happens then when innocents starting shooting other innocents?...

It's well known that law enforcement is often outgunned due to criminals in possession of automatic weapons and other treats, some of which are purchased at gun shows with no background checks.