Both can be independently valid justifications for gun control without involving any conflation of one for the other.
(I know that you're just elaborating on what the poster is saying rather than expressing your own views, so treat this as a reply to their comment rather than yours.)
The OP’s argument is basically completely irrelevant to the actual point. If we banned any research that could be misinterpreted or abused because they are on political issues, we’d might as well ban all research...at the very least, research on climate change, vaccinations, health effects of pollution, research on deaths due to obesity, causes of obesity should be banned immediately. But if we go back a few centuries it gets a lot worse, because almost all science today, especially that which went against what the church believed, should have been banned by this logic.
That being said, the OP’s specific point is also really bad. If gun control leads to reduced deaths, but the reduced deaths are entirely due to reduced suicides (they’re not...but hypothetically), that would still be an argument in favor of gun control, not against.
It may not be a good solution to reducing the mass murder of toddlers, but hey, we won’t know that until we actually do the research on it. Which is the whole point.
glenstein|6 years ago
(I know that you're just elaborating on what the poster is saying rather than expressing your own views, so treat this as a reply to their comment rather than yours.)
thawaway1837|6 years ago
That being said, the OP’s specific point is also really bad. If gun control leads to reduced deaths, but the reduced deaths are entirely due to reduced suicides (they’re not...but hypothetically), that would still be an argument in favor of gun control, not against.
It may not be a good solution to reducing the mass murder of toddlers, but hey, we won’t know that until we actually do the research on it. Which is the whole point.