In the wake of any high-profile shooting like Kansas City, it's inevitable that someone is going to push for gun control. It's going to happen in any state, even one with a history of anti-gun measures stacking up on one another.

In a state like Missouri, where gun control isn't a factor, anti-gun forces almost have to seize on such an opportunity. It's the only hope they've got.

But the question that needs to be asked is whether or not such laws would actually have prevented the shooting in question.

The answer with regard to Kansas City? Nope.

As it stands, what grand gun control proposal would have done anything here? The guns used were handguns, so an “assault weapons” ban is out. What “expanded” or “universal” background check applies to stolen handguns? Maybe, maybe, you could find something that would have prevented Miller, who is 18, from possessing a gun, but it was Mays, with his stolen firearm, who began shooting first. So, where are we now?

This is yet another instance in the never-ending gun control debate of left-wing politicians and activists throwing their stale talking points onto a tragedy with no serious interest in preventing tragedies like it. They treat incidents such as the Kansas City shooting as notches in their gun control debate belt, ignoring the specifics to push their unrelated, ineffective policies, all while they shame people for daring to disagree. The only shame here belongs with them and their selfish partisan politics.

That's because the shootings aren't motivators, they're pretexts.

Take Kansas City, for example. Mays, who had a stolen firearm, said he was "just being stupid." He disregarded literally everyone around him when he reacted to a "threat" that was only a threat in the weakest sense of the term. 

Take a look at some of the proposals.

One looks to reinstate a requirement for carry permits. Mays, however, had a stolen gun. It doesn't seem rational to think that such a law would stop him from carrying a gun. "I'd carry my stolen gun, but since I don't have a permit, I'll leave it at home because carrying it would be illegal," said no criminal ever.

Then we have the assault weapon bans and expanded background checks noted above.

At no point, though, can anyone point out a single measure that really addresses what happened in any meaningful way, which isn't surprising. That's because gun control is never going to stop a situation like this.

But again, they're not trying to stop something like this, they're trying to use something like this.

Kansas City was a tragedy, but for the anti-gunners, it was an opportunity. It was a chance to push for the things they've wanted all along but had no chance in hell of getting in Missouri. They'll run out the smorgasbord of anti-gun initiatives because they don't know when the next time they'll get a chance like this will be.

And yes, we can all see it for what it is. It's the very thing they'd blast us for doing, that they've blasted us for less, but they see no sin in doing themselves.