The Republican National Convention has come and gone, and all without significant incident. There was one arrest made--an individual carrying an AK pistol without a permit--but nothing really troubling. There was no violence at all.

It kicked off just days after an attempt on the life of former President Donald Trump, too, which many in the media latched onto in order to decry the lack of gun laws surrounding the convention.

Yet, there's an important point that must be remembered. There was no violence.

And the fact that there wasn't any violence is kind of telling.

At the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Milwaukee, former President Trump has been nominated to be elected president again. Senator J.D. Vance has been selected as the Vice President candidate. No one was shot or injured at the convention. There was heightened security because of the recent assassination attempt on former President Trump.

Far-left Democrats, such as Milwaukee Alderman Bauman, wanted someone, anyone, to ban the possession of firearms near the convention but outside the security perimeter. The City of Milwaukee did not have the power to do it. The Secret Service did not have the power to do it. They could not revoke everyone’s rights, protected by the Second Amendment, because of the Second Amendment, Wisconsin’s similar protection, Section 25, and Wisconsin state law, which prohibits local governments from infringing on the right to be armed. From abcnews.go:

Due to Wisconsin state law, people will be allowed to openly carry guns and can conceal-carry with a permit inside the so-called “soft perimeter,” which surrounds the Secret Service patrolled inner “hard perimeter.” City officials tell ABC News they are frustrated following Saturday’s developments but don’t expect a change.

Only, nothing happened. Nothing at all.

There was, as noted, one arrest for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit--a misdemeanor--but there are also no indications that the individual in question intended to do anything violent. The presence of a gun is indication enough for hoplophobes, but that doesn't make it so.

So why was there no violence if guns were so unrestricted?

Could it be that the lack of restriction meant that those inclined to be violent figured it was best to stay home?

See, one thing I've noticed about violent people is that they're often cowards. They're more than willing to get violent, but they're counting on others to be either compliant or so caught off guard that they don't fight back. They're counting on people being, basically, sheep.

Those who might have been interested in being violent at the RNC likely decided it was just too risky because Republicans are more likely to be armed than Democrats. They figured that if they went there looking for sheep, they might find rams among those sheep and they wouldn't like the outcome of that confrontation.

Gun control doesn't make anyone safer. It just creates a more target-rich environment for violent, dangerous people who prefer not to have to work that hard when confronting their prey.

The lack of those laws outside of the Secret Service perimeter made everyone safer.

It's only the truly and willfully blind no cannot see that.