The would-be assassin who targeted former President Donald Trump didn't buy his firearm. He took one belonging to his father. Essentially, he stole it. Maybe he planned on returning it after the attempt or something, but he took it and one would assume Dad didn't give him permission to kill the Republican presumptive nominee.

That's an important point to remember as we go forward in the campaign season, one of many such important points.

They're important because the media seems to be doing everything it can to ignore them as they try to push this idea that gun control might have prevented the attempt. The latest example involves political divisions in Pennsylvania that prevented gun control from passing there.

Months before an armed man took aim at Donald Trump at a presidential campaign rally in rural Pennsylvania, some state lawmakers had proposed to outlaw the type of rifle used in the assassination attempt.

The legislation stalled without coming to a vote, but that was no surprise. Politically divided Pennsylvania has been at a standstill for years on gun policy, lacking enough support to either strengthen or relax existing firearm laws.

That's unlikely to change as a result of the shooting at Trump's rally, which killed an attendee, seriously injured two others and wounded the ear of the Republican presidential nominee.

“Sadly, we’ll probably be stuck with our similar gun laws, which are not strong enough,” said Democratic state Rep. Ben Sanchez, the sponsor of several gun-control measures, including one to outlaw certain semiautomatic firearms.

Except that the indications are that the shooter's father owned the gun for quite some time. While the proposal would have "outlawed" the gun, it likely wouldn't have impacted those already in private hands.

In other words, the gun would have still been there for the shooter to steal in his desire to kill Trump.

Of course, none of that touches on the fact that even if that particular gun hadn't been there, the shooter could have obtained a different kind of rifle as still taken the shot, potentially killing Trump and creating even more upheaval in our political process.

Few seem to be bothering to ask why he took this step. Only a handful in the media seem remotely curious about the guy or why he decided to take a shot at the former president. If, as has been suggested, he was looking for an opportunity to carry out a high-profile murder, then where are the questions about what drives someone to even consider such a thing?

Instead, they want to focus on our right to keep and bear arms, particularly the defense of that right and seek to lay the blame there.

Never mind how many used their free speech rights to denigrate Trump at every opportunity, potentially poisoning the young man's mind about his eventual target. That can't be considered because villainizing someone can't ever backfire or something.

I really don't know just what was going on in the guy's head, but if we want to stop this cycle of attacks, we need to figure it out and find a way to address it before the next one.