A pretty common line of argumentation from folks who believe that the solution to gun violence is making guns more readily available goes like, “If someone were to die from [insert typically non-lethal item], then would you be favor in limiting access to [typically non-lethal item?]”
Cars kill people all of the time, do you want to ban cars?
Someone could be bludgeoned to death with a can of soup, do you want to ban soup?
What if someone were to drown to death in a tub of jello? Would you want to restrict access to jello?
It’s madlibs for gun nuts.
Anyhow, the reason this is a totally stupid argument is that things like cars, cans of soup, and jello have a whole slew of purposes other than killing people.
The entire point of a gun is that it allows a person to kill another person with the least amount of effort and emotional investment. So when someone like Bob Costas says that someone might still be alive if their killer didn’t have a gun, that’s a perfectly valid thing to say. Obviously people can kill each other without guns, but it’s a lot more difficult and also a lot more personal.
Oh, and it’s also completely and totally weird that people are calling for Costas to be fired. Apparently the right to free speech does not apply in cases of blasphemy a.k.a. gun control advocacy.