Between Lakewood Church and Kansas City, the anti-gunners have had plenty of opportunities to call out for more gun control. They do it after every high-profile shooting, generally before we even know what kind of weapon was used or anything about the shooters.

They've been true to form over the last couple of weeks, to say the least.

Then we have the murder of two police officers and a paramedic in Minnesota to add even more fuel to the fire.

Yet is it really about addressing the problem of gun violence?

Over at the Washington Examiner, Zachary Faria doesn't think so.

The cries of “do something” flood the discourse regularly, and yet nearly every prominent shooting would not have been prevented by popular gun control proposals. These two examples are no different. Every gun control lecture inspired by either of these cases is only meant to take guns away from people who have not and will not commit crimes because they are law-abiding gun owners.

Declared or not, that appears to be the entire point. That was evidenced when Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas, who immediately jumped on the gun control train, shamed people for daring to refer to the two suspected shooters who killed one person and injured 22 others as “thugs.” We need more gun control immediately even though the two suspects aren’t allowed to own guns, according to Lucas, but don’t you dare hurt the feelings of the two suspects behind the shooting.

This is how every gun control debate goes with the Democratic Party and its gun-grabbing activists. The priority is placed on making things harder for people who actually abide by the law, while criminals are already given a pass in Democratic-run cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles, and, yes, Kansas City. The gun control debate is once again a distraction from the failures of politicians such as Lucas, full of “solutions” that won’t work for problems that they don’t address.

Now, granted, we know a bit more about Kansas City than Faria did when he wrote this, including that at least two adults are responsible for the mayhem. The thing is, it doesn't really change all that much.

Yes, at least one person may have been able to lawfully own a firearm, but that really doesn't mean all that much, especially when anti-gunners keep claiming they don't want to get in the way of our Second Amendment rights, even as they do everything they possibly can do get in the way of our Second Amendment rights.

It's funny to me that gun control gets treated like the answer for almost all of society's ills, a claim that makes no sense if you stop to think about it for more than half a second.

For example, gun control will supposedly stop mass shootings, suicides, regular murders, accidental shootings, and so many other things, and not just tailored laws that happen to fall under the gun control umbrella. Oh no, I mean some of the exact same laws. 

Yet absolutely no time is spent considering that if you remove the gun, you still have the underlying problems. I mean, would society be better off if our murders were stabbings instead of shootings? Would people be happier if our mass killings were from arson instead of firearms? If our suicides were due to self-poisonings?

I don't think so and, frankly, neither does anyone else if they're being honest.

But addressing those underlying issues is hard. We can't even agree on what those might be, for one thing, but we also can't even have that discussion because we're having to debate gun control instead.

That's because it's likely meant to be nothing but a big distraction.