For your average anti-gun activist, the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump had to seem like a golden opportunity. After all, the leader of the party most opposed to gun control was just shot at by someone using the gun you've vilified for decades and tried to eliminate from private hands just as long. Surely this would do something.

Well, it won't, and don't call me Shirley.

But a lot of people think it will, and that's apparent through numerous op-eds.]

And the media? They're just trying to stoke the flames, such as writing repeated pieces asking whether guns were to blame, such as this one.

Assassination attempts against U.S. presidents have led to major gun laws, but the July 13 shooting at a rally for former President Donald Trump appears unlikely to be a pivotal moment in the divisive U.S. gun debate.

In the days since Trump narrowly escaped a bullet fired from a would-be assassin’s rifle, the two sides in America’s argument over gun rights remain at odds over whether firearms are the major problem leading to such violence.

...

“Everybody gets into a ruckus, but by the time they get around to doing anything, it all falls by the wayside,” said Jerry Henry, executive director of GA2A, a prominent gun-rights group in Georgia. “This is not going to be a watershed moment.”

The Republican National Committee’s platform this year made only passing reference to Second Amendment rights and took no specific policy positions regarding firearms, a move that sparked concern from gun-rights groups. With the exception of 2020, when the convention didn’t adopt a platform during the pandemic, RNC platforms for decades included discussion of gun policies and positions.

At the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee last week, America’s complex relationship with guns was apparent. Delegates wore bandage-like ear patches in solidarity with Trump, whose ear was wounded in the shooting. A gun-rights group held a raffle for a free AR-15 at its booth. On Monday, a man was arrested near the convention venue with a concealed weapon: an AK-47 pistol.

It should be noted that the man arrested outside the RNC was arrested for carrying without a concealed carry permit. Interestingly, the author fails to mention he was also wearing a mask and carrying the gun in a backpack, which was all pretty suspicious to begin with.

But the gist of the piece somehow suggests, or at least considers the possibility, that the lack of gun control laws is, in fact, to blame.

Which is nonsense.

Had the shooter not had access to an AR-15, does anyone think that the shot wouldn't have happened? Can anyone with two or more functioning brain cells--which I know, rules out any of the hosts of The View--really think that he couldn't have taken a similar shot with a hunting rifle? Pretty much any bolt-action hunting weapon would be more than capable of taking that shot. Arguably, more capable, really.

The core of the question, though, is that no, guns aren't to blame.

The would-be assassin also had explosives in his vehicle. Despite being tightly controlled, he somehow accessed them, and in that we get a glimpse of the issue with gun control in the first place. It's all premised on the attitude that you can somehow change people by barring them from a particular category of weapon, that somehow violent criminals will become productive members of society or something if they can't get a gun.

But the issue is as it's always been, ever since Cain slew Able: The heart of men isn't universally good. Removing a weapon just means they will find other means to hurt others.

In this case, the would-be assassin might have opted to use those explosives somehow, killing far more than one person and injuring scores more.

No, guns aren't to blame. A personal was. People are and always will be responsible for their acts of violence, regardless of what weapon is used.