Over the last week and a half, it seems like one of the more common gun stories Cam and I have come across is some variation of "gun control would have prevented the assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump."  I can't seem to look for stories and Second Amendment-related news without stumbling across at least five, and that's just what Google shows me. I suspect there are thousands more that simply don't cross my feed.

And so we've spent much of our time smacking those down, despite feeling like they get a bit repetitive.

So it was refreshing to see an op-ed where it clearly argues the opposite.

Then again, it was written by GOA's Louis Valdes, so this doesn't surprise me at all. Still, he's right.

The bottom line is this: Gun control would not have prevented this near catastrophe.

Gun control cannot stop a killer from carrying out an evil act. If they can’t access a gun, they will try other means. Just ask the Europeans about the incessant knife attacks they’re seeing or the paradegoers who were gruesomely mowed down with a car in Waukesha, Wisconsin.

In addition, the assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in 2022 is perhaps the most compelling case study from which one can glean important lessons. Gun control failed in Japan on that terrible day, mainly because it created a false sense of security. Abe’s assassin manufactured a homemade gun with a metal pipe, wood and duct tape, and the powder was curated from fireworks.

Surely, other measures can mitigate and wholly prevent incidents like the violence in Pennsylvania. A larger security presence, a higher-tech security apparatus and a more aggressive response by law enforcement to initial reports from passersby about the gunman would have certainly done the job. Notably, gun control is not among those recommendations.

Go and read the whole thing, but Valdes is absolutely correct. Gun control is not now, nor is it ever the answer for something like this. What happened was awful and it could have been a much worse tragedy. As it was, it was bad enough with an innocent life taken and others injured.

The potential political upheaval could have done God only knows what kind of damage to our nation.

But gun control would do just as much, especially as there's no reason to believe at all that any regulation exists that could somehow strip out the evil from the hearts of men. Without that, there's not much you can do except to provide better protection, which was clearly missing from Butler, Pennsylvania.

Let's remember that the would-be assassin had explosives in his vehicle. He clearly was willing to carry out an assassination attempt without a firearm if that's what had to happen. It didn't, but explosives are very tightly controlled. I can't just walk into a local store and walk out with a few pounds of Simtex. If he would go to the extent of obtaining explosives in violation of the law, it's idiotic to assume he wouldn't also violate the law to obtain a firearm.

But then again, your average gun control advocate is just that idiotic.