The AR-15 is the most popular model of rifle in the country. There are millions upon millions of them in circulation and people have them for a number of reasons. One of those reasons for many is simply the fact that a lot of people don't want us to have them.

It seems that the would-be assassin in Butler, Pennsylvania had an AR-15 with which he tried to murder former President Donald Trump.

Over at the UK newspaper The Independent, which also covers US politics, they're really hung up on the weapon used and the fact that Republicans have resisted assault weapon bans in the past.

A 20-year-old gunman fired on Donald Trump with a rifle that has been at the center of the national debate over gun control, and that the former president and Congress have resisted calls to ban.

Since taking office, President Joe Biden has made dozens of unanswered calls to Congress to renew a ban on so-called assault weapons like the AR-15-style rifle that was used to shoot into a crowd at a Trump rally on July 13.

The assassination attempt in Pennsylvania on Saturday night is likely to renew debate about the state of the nation’s gun laws and the proliferation of high-powered firearms like AR-style rifles, which have become the most popular firearms in America while being used in some of the deadliest mass shooting events over the last two decades.

“Time and time again our communities are shaken by acts of gun violence that have invaded what should be our safe places, and that includes the violence that we saw,” according to Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of gun reform group Moms Demand Action.

“But they are a consequence of our country’s weak gun laws and guns everywhere culture — laws that allow hate to be armed with a gun to easily take someone else’s life,” she added.

The 20-year-old suspected gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks, could legally purchase rifles like the AR-15 in Pennsylvania, as shotguns and rifles can be purchased in the state at age 18. The minimum age to purchase handguns in Pennsylvania is 21.

But according to law enforcement officials speaking to ABC News, the firearm recovered at the scene of the was legally purchased by the suspect’s father.

So what we have here is a case of knowing good and well that proposals to restrict AR-15 ownership to just those over 21 wouldn't have accomplished jack. After all, if the would-be assassin was 20, then his father had to be significantly over 21 himself.

But as for the use of an AR-15 for this attack, I'm left asking, "So what?"

With the type of attack this was, there are a lot of other firearms that would survive any assault weapon ban attempt, even the proposal that would essentially ban all gas-operated rifles. Bolt-actions, for example, are often preferred by snipers and often are more accurate than semi-automatic firearms. He still could have fired into the crowd, too, after missing.

See, the issue here is that these folks are hung up on the weapon and they forget that the problem here, once again, is that you had a person with evil intentions. 

After all, we've since learned that the shooter had explosives in his car.

Now, explosives are more tightly controlled than guns are. While we don't know what kind of explosives this dipstick had, we know he had them. He also had bomb-making materials in his house.

So if he couldn't have gotten a gun, does anyone think he wouldn't have still tried to carry out some kind of attack? It seems like he at least had a Plan B in the works, one that involved a bomb to some degree or another.

And none of the explosive controls on the books did jack squat.

The problem is, again, that he wanted to kill Trump for whatever reason. The fact that he used an AR-15 is largely irrelevant. A Bernie Bro tried to kill a number of Republican congressmen with an SKS in Alexandria a while back. An AR-15 is just a firearm and it just happened to be misused in this case just like the SKS was misused in that case.

It's not the tool. It's the tool using it.

It always has been and always will be.