In the aftermath of the assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump, a lot of press went toward where the shooter got his gun. The ATF traced it within a handful of minutes to the killer's father. At least one report crowed about how they were able to do it so quickly because of a "controversial" practice using records of closed gun stores.

Well, it turns out it wasn't the father's gun after all.

According to the director of the FBI, the dad sold the gun to his son, all following the law. Also, apparently, some are concerned there were 14 guns in the house.

 FBI Director Christopher Wray revealed on Wednesday that Thomas Crooks' family had more than a dozen firearms in their Pennsylvania home and that father Matthew Crooks legally sold his son the weapon that the 20-year-old would use in his assassination attempt on former President Trump.

"We located a number of firearms associated with the shooter and his family," Wray told the House Judiciary Committee. "I think it was a total of … 14 in the house."

"The weapon that he used for the attempted assassination was an AR-style rifle that was purchased legally," Wray said. "We believe, based on what we’ve seen, that his father, after purchasing the gun, legally sold the gun to his son."

In truth, 14 firearms may seem like a lot to non-gun people, but for many of us, that's nothing to even blink at.

Also, this changes absolutely none of the arguments against calls for gun control in the wake of the shooting in Butler, Pennsylvania.

While it seems that Crooks didn't steal the gun, as I initially thought, there is still no chance that new gun laws would have kept him disarmed in any way, shape, or form.

Some might now argue that universal background checks and limits on long gun purchases for those under 21 might have done something, but I disagree. First, many universal background check requirements have exceptions for close family. It doesn't get much closer than a father and his son.

Additionally, the age limits tend to be on purchasing a firearm, not owning or possessing one. That's an important distinction because it's not out of bounds to think that the father may have allowed his son to keep the gun as a long-term loan, then sold it to him at the legal age.

We've addressed the other arguments being thrown around over and over again, including how an assault weapon ban wouldn't have prevented jack squat. Especially since such a law would likely only be limited to new sales of such weapons, not private sales of previously owned firearms.

So no, gun control wouldn't have stopped anything.

All that changes here are the ways in which gun control would have failed. The nature of those failures are different, but otherwise, little else about our understanding of how the world works has changed.

That won't stop many people from trying to argue otherwise, of course. Some are determined to find a way to blame guns and our gun rights no matter what.