A lot of people who lost loved ones to some kind of gunshot want gun control. I can see where they’re coming from, even if I disagree with them about what they’re trying to do in their grief.

They’re upset and trying to do something productive. They’re telling themselves that what they’re doing is trying to prevent anyone else from experiencing what they experienced. What’s more, they deeply believe it.

But far too often, we find that they’re just lashing out.

Take this story out of California, where the parents of a woman who died from gunfire are pushing for gun control.

It’s been one year since Jessica Madrigal’s life changed forever.

“Today is the year that she has been away from us court is still going on,” Madrigal said. “The assailant is still out. We are here trying to get justice for my daughter.”

…

“We are here trying to bring awareness to gun violence,” said Madrigal.

She says that more gun laws need to be put in place to prevent tragedies like these from happening again.

Madrigal’s 20-year-old daughter was shot and killed by her 22-year-old boyfriend in a hotel room in Fresno.

The man first said she accidentally shot herself, then changed his story to say he did it unintentionally.

Now, don’t get me wrong, this is a tragedy.

I just fail to see how gun control would have prevented it.

The boyfriend has been charged and is facing trial for voluntary manslaughter, but doesn’t appear to have any charges for being a felon or other prohibited person in possession of a firearm. The report doesn’t say what kind of firearm it was, though a handgun is most likely. He’s also not charged with being in possession of a stolen gun.

Regardless, this happened in California, which has extensive gun control laws already on the books, including bans on so-called assault weapons.

So I’m genuinely flummoxed in trying to figure out just what kind of gun control Madrigal thinks would have prevented such a tragedy.

As the gun doesn’t appear to have been stolen, it means the boyfriend went through a background check regardless of what kind of firearm it was–after all, California has universal background checks–so, again, I don’t see what gun control laws could be passed to address this.

Unless they’re talking about a total gun ban, which I suspect they’d never actually admit to.

What’s the takeaway here? It’s simple. The media will push people like this out so as to make people feel bad. They want people to be emotional and sad, if not angry. People who are emotional are far more likely to agree to forfeit some or all of their gun rights.

But people like these are the truly emotional ones, and not without cause. Yet gun control groups and the media routinely try to capitalize on people’s grief, trying to weaponize it against your right to keep and bear arms, all without any concern over the fact that these people don’t actually understand the topic at hand.

They’re not experts and losing their daughter, while awful, doesn’t impart any actual wisdom.

But we’re still going to hear about folks like this in spite of what little they really have to offer to the debate besides emotion. That’s because that’s what they’re wanted for and nothing else.