This is like the archetypical off-topic ideological tangent. On a thread about a stunning and complicated medical achievement, more than 30% of the comments are a firearms debate issuing from this comment. Please don't write stuff like this. I know it seems natural to use this story as a launching point for talking about the broader ideological issue, and unnatural not to do that when it's the obvious thought the story generates in your head, but with volatile topics we have to resist the urge lest flamewars burn down the threads.
(I fucking hate firearms, for whatever that's worth).
I might have otherwise been inclined to agree, but the framing of the original story I think wisely spends at least a little bit of time -- maybe not 30% -- discussing the para-political and social issues surrounding this, not just the scientific and technological issues of the transplant and the human story of Katie's recovery.
I think it's wise for the original article to discuss at least in passing the access to guns that allowed the suicide attempt to happen, the drug crisis that leads to there being any young donors at all, the donor waitlist situation and the choice to become a donor, and the DoD's involvement, and I'm glad the comments do as well.
I do agree that the comment you're responding to directly probably isn't the best kick at the can, though, and so to the extent that you mention the parent comment needing to resist the urge, I think the urge that should be resisted is the urge to have a driveby comment on a volatile subject, not to bring in related social/political issues.
(I fucking hate firearms, for whatever that's worth).