>>109152601>Attacking an idea with genetic fallacy (attacking where the idea stem for rather than the idea itself) is just a cheap deflect.
That's not what I'm doing. You actually have it backwards. It goes more like this:
1. In response to a mass shooting, social media blows up with calls for "gun control".
2. Since the evidence is in, freely available, and clear that the availability of guns is unrelated to the incidence of violence, and since there has not yet been an investigation into what actually led to the specific shooting in question, it is obvious that such calls are not made to actually fix whatever problems led to the shooting.
3. It's possible that the people making those calls actually believe that "gun control" would fix things, but since a cursory examination of the actual evidence shows otherwise, they clearly don't care enough to inform themselves about the issue.
4. As such, even among these people, we can conclude that their desire to be viewed as virtuous on social media is a stronger motivator than actually fixing things, since otherwise they would have informed themselves before joining a chorus of righteous indignation.