All around us, bad things happen.

Much of our attention has been focused on the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump, but a lot of other horrible things have happened since Saturday as well. Plenty more happened before it.

While much of the media's attention has been focused on Trump and the aftermath of that incident, they still cover the other terrible things. That's their job.

The problem is, as noted by Dave Workman writing over at Ammoland, that they're covering it in such a way that they omit important information that might well prove harmful to the anti-gun agenda.

Whether it is a report about the 16-year-old suspect in a deadly Seattle-area mall shooting or the shooting of a would-be teenage carjacker outside the home of a Supreme Court justice, there appears to be a uniform omission in all of the news coverage, which only helps to fuel the gun control agenda.

None of the reports provide an in-depth explanation of the laws already being violated by the teens involved. As a result, readers and listeners are left with the impression that “one more law,” which ultimately only affects law-abiding adults, is the solution to the problem.

Facing charges in Washington, D.C. for the attempted armed carjacking outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is 18-year-old Kentrell Flowers. He has been charged with carrying a pistol without a license and possession of a large-capacity magazine, according to the New York Post.

Not mentioned is that he was prohibited by law from having the handgun at his age because teens cannot get a license to carry in the District.

Amazingly, the Deputy U.S. Marshal who shot him at point-blank range didn’t kill Flowers. Perhaps the lawman needs more range time.

Emerging at the same time from the “other Washington” is the somewhat bizarre story revolving around the slaying of 13-year-old Jayda Woods-Johnson at the Alderwood Mall in Lynnwood, a suburban community north of Seattle. Sixteen-year-old Samuel Gizaw has been charged as an adult in the case. He faces charges of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, first-degree assault and second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm.

While those charges should be self-explanatory, KOMO News—the Seattle-area ABC affiliate—could easily have noted that in Washington state, the suspect is prohibited by existing law from carrying a concealed handgun. Viewers frequently need to be reminded about existing laws that were adopted to prevent this sort of crime, and which evidently have failed, fatally. The establishment press never delves into that arena.

Workman is correct. People tend to forget which laws are on the books and which aren't. Even if they were following current events when such a law was passed, it doesn't mean they retained that information. If they're not gun people, it's unlikely they expend much energy remembering which laws passed and which didn't. Hell, it's my job and I have a hard time remembering some of what actually passed and what died in the legislature.

So reminding folks would be important if you want to inform them of all the facts, especially on such a high-profile crime.

Why don't they?

The answer is simple. If people find out that gun laws don't actually stop criminals from doing stuff, they might not support still more of them.

People don't like to bang their heads against the wall. They recognize that doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, and yet passing gun control laws time and time again to supposed prevent things like this from happening only to see them happen once again is just that. So, if you fail to point out how the laws in question didn't work, well, they'll probably not remember that there were laws in the first place.

Now, part of me ascribes to the belief that you should never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence, but the fact that it seems literally no one gets this right means either literally everyone in local media everywhere sucks at their jobs or this is intentional, at least by some reporters.

Either way, it's funny how anything that can be blamed on gun rights makes it in the stories just fine, but anything that hurts gun control gets omitted.

But sure, it's probably all just an accident.

On a related note, I have a beachfront condo I'd love to sell you in Kansas.