Two things are dominating the gun debate right now: Mass murder and the latest assassination attempt against Donald Trump.

In theory, these two things could be said to have absolutely nothing to do with one another. While Apalachee High School was awful, the only thing that incident had in common with the attempt on Trump's life was that both individuals had guns.

But there's a place where these two coincide, and that's looking at the shooting at a Republican baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia.

While no one lost their lives that day, Rep. Steve Scalise almost did. The attack was politically motivated, no matter what some try to claim, and it could easily have taken the lives of a number of Republican lawmakers.

And despite that, it seems Congress doesn't have a plan for the worst happening.

Over the past 15 years, members of Congress have survived two near-deadly shootings, a train crash with dozens of them on board, and a Capitol riot that had hundreds of lawmakers fearing for their lives.

Despite those incidents, the institution is wholly unprepared for a catastrophic event that kills or incapacitates multiple members — even if that hypothetical tragedy results in a major power shift: changing which party holds the majority in the House or Senate.

Members of Congress themselves have proposed a host of solutions to the havoc a mass casualty could wreak. Those propositions range from a constitutional amendment allowing members to designate their own successors to simple rule changes to prevent violence from shifting party power. But a POLITICO review shows that both Republican and Democratic leaders, including chairs of key committees, have failed to significantly advance any of the ideas proposed since a mass shooting at a GOP baseball practice in 2017. That’s largely based on a reluctance to acknowledge the issue and a general resistance in Congress to changing rules.

That strikes many members as foolhardy.

“The number of rounds in one pistol clip can change the balance of power of the House or the Senate,” said former Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), who took up the issue after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when a hijacked plane came within 20 minutes of crashing into the Capitol.

So what's the big deal?

Well, for one thing, such an incident could do interesting things to the balance of power in Congress. What's more, as Politico points out, that could be the goal.

And there’s another worry: What if the slim congressional margins create an incentive for an act of political violence explicitly designed to shift control from one party to the other?

“Part of the problem right now is someone with bad intentions could flip a majority for four months. And that’s horrifying,” said Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.), referring to how long it might take to fill vacancies through special elections, rather than immediate appointments. “And our reaction can’t be, ‘Well, that’ll never happen.’ Or, ‘Well, we’ll deal with that when the time comes.’ Because once the time comes, it’s too late.”

Let's keep in mind, once again, that there have been two attempts on Trump's life this year alone. That doesn't count the numerous threats and other attempts that get handled before they ever get to the point of making the news.

The idea of politically motivated violence from homegrown factions isn't exactly a far-fetched idea.

While some like to pretend that the answer is gun control, the truth of the matter is that there are numerous ways to kill a ton of people and Congress is always going to be a viable target for those who seek to disrupt our government in some way. 

It would seem that the need to do something to maintain the status quo with regard to the balance of power would be a no-brainer for Congress, a rare point where everyone can agree to do something.

And yet, despite all the evidence that bad things can happen to congressmen and women, they've done absolutely nothing. Yeah, the other side might be able to hold onto power should something happen, but only if they're in the majority at the time. We don't know what the future holds, so both parties might do well to consider how they could lose their majorities should something happen.

They aren't, and this is likely to create a massive problem sooner or later.

Instead of taking care of business, though, some of them are too busy trying to crack down on our ability to deal with problems. Typical.