they also say " our analysis and those of others suggest that ... restricting abusers’ access to guns can potentially reduce both overall rates of homicide and rates of intimate partner femicide
*Potentially* you nor these people are mind readers. To state someone who died, would not have died without a gun present, is both claiming knowledge you cant know. And on top of that, to include actual IPV on that and not just death makes me highly wary.
In that study as pointed out, the highest indicator for death via IPV is past history of IPV. Its flat out stated guns increase the risk of lethality. There is nothing that indicates it would reduce IPV, nor does that rationally make sense.
Somebody who is abusive is more likely to try to kill their partner. If they are more likely to try to kill their partner, obviously they'll go for the most convenient tool to that ends, a gun, if handy. This bares no reflection on the commitment of IPV independent of homicide with a gun. As again, the biggest indicator of homicide of a partner is past IPV being committed.
People dont generally abuse their partners, to state someone with a gun who has no criminal history of IPV or violence at all, is more likely to abuse their partner just because they have a gun, is just horrid logic. See this is really interesting, because on one hand, you are attribiting culpability and thus agency to am object. But on the other, you are actually making a case for why these criminals arent culpable and rather, victims themselves of the evil machinations of guns, which can apparently, independent of other personal prevalencies, cause a law abiding citizen who has zero past history of violence, to become violent, in themselves.
What you are arguing necessarily means the people who commit these crimes, are not wholly culpable for their acts, and thus should not be punished severely for their actions. See, these kinds of absurd implications of rationale, are often the result of not critically examining the underlying rationale, and just regurgiting things. You aren't thinking about what your position means in its full scope and implications, you are stopping at the surface and going, "nope, surely this is all there is to it, not anything at all beyond this to examine for absurdities in rationale"
