AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

A dozen years ago yesterday, the most horrific school shooting in American history took place. The Virginia Tech massacre was an atrocity and a kick in the American Gut.

So I guess we shouldn’t be surprised when one of the nation’s most anti-gun lawmakers decided to tweet about it to advance gun control.

Twelve years ago today, 32 lives were lost at Virginia Tech in the deadliest shooting on a school campus. Students should be free to get an education without the fear of gun violence. We need commonsense reform to prevent another senseless tragedy. #VTWeRemember

— Senator Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) April 16, 2019

Feinstein, unsurprisingly, thinks we need more gun laws.

However, she omitted a very important point in her tweet. It’s a point that we need to talk about if we’re going to invoke Virginia Tech to push for gun control.

What is that point?

It’s simple. Not a single bill being considered right now would have stopped the attack — not one.

The shooter was legally barred from owning a firearm, yet he passed the federal background check to buy not just one, but two firearms. What good would something like universal background checks do if he could pass them already? Again, he bought his guns from licensed dealers. Thus he passed those checks.

The killer also didn’t use an AR-15 to commit the attack, so what good would a ban on “assault weapons” do? He committed the deadliest school shooting in American history with a couple of pistols. Handguns aren’t likely to be banned anytime soon, especially following the Heller decision that explicitly overturned a handgun ban.

No Fly, No Buy? The shooter wasn’t on the watch list so far as we know, so what good would that have done?

Red flag laws? The killer had been committed against his will, “adjudicated as mentally defective,” as the law states. That was before he bought his guns, so where would a red flag law come in? If anyone had an inkling of what was coming, they could have gotten him committed again, thus stopping the attack that way. However, while people knew the killer was weird and angry, no one expected what happened.

I could do this all day. A magazine restriction would have forced the killer to carry more magazines. Restrictions on ammo purchases would have meant he needed to stockpile for a bit longer before killing.

There’s nothing on the table in any state that would have stopped that maniac from committing mass murder, so what does Sen. Feinstein want people to do?

She wants them to feel horrified and feel the need to Do Something (TM). It doesn’t matter to her if the bill would have stopped this attack or not. She doesn’t care about any of that. She wants gun control, and she’ll settle for whatever she can get.

Gun control is all about emotion. That’s why in the aftermath of every attack we see bills that wouldn’t have stopped it trotted out. Anti-gunners aren’t interested in preventing future attacks. They want gun control bills in place so they can claim they “did something.”

With Feinstein, that’s all she’s doing with that tweet. She knows nothing being discussed would have stopped it. She doesn’t care.