Slippery Slope, Weak Analogy, or ____________. What is this fallacy?!

Hello!
I was reading an article about the new abortion laws in Alabama when the author went into a rant about conservatives and guns (Red Herring). Here is a snippet of the article I was reading:

(In regards to guns) Giving someone the tools to easily kill hundreds of people does not necessarily mean they'll do it, but then why do they need it (guns) in the first place? This is like telling a kid they can have a piece of candy, rather, they can go to the store and buy all the candy they want, but they can't eat it.
Is the child going to refrain from eating the candy? Most likely no. So, what's stopping people from carrying out mass shootings?

It seems to be a weak analogy or possibly slippery slope, but I could be wrong. What is this fallacy?!
Thank you!

Hmmmmm, veddy interesting. So the claimant is complaining that allowing people to buy weapons of mass murder is similar to allowing children to buy copious amounts of candy because sooner or later they might be likely to use (eat) them. As I interpret this he's comparing impulse control and easy accessibility to guns to children in a candy store, and while most may exercise restraint, a few may not be so inclined. The article seems more poorly reasoned or constructed than fallacious and since there's no real deception I don't see a fallacy.

Almost all analogies are weak, and this is no exception.

In a valid analogy the two cases must be alike in every essential way. These two cases are obviously not alike in every essential way. So there you go.

Because several of the sentences are questions, one has to figure out if they are truly questions seeking information or rhetorical questions that are making statements. If they are questions seeking information, there's no fallacy.

However, based on the context, it would appear that the first and last question is indeed rhetorical and intended to lead the reader to believe, "There's nothing or very little stopping people from carrying out mass shootings." The second question is certainly rhetorical, since it's answered immediately after.

You're right that it's a weak analogy.

Regarding slippery slope, I would say the author has created a somewhat slippery slope because of the use of "people" rather than "some people" or some other qualifier. The way it's written, it makes it sound like a considerable percentage would.

But, perhaps the author simply meant more than one, rather than a considerable percentage. If the author is simply making a statement of the group as a whole in the United States having more than one mass shooting, then it's not a slippery slope, since it's not an extreme hypothetical.

That said, based on the way it's phrased, it appears to be arguing for a considerable percentage.

There's also a fallacy of ignorance "but then why do they need it (guns) in the first place" (with the implied "they don't") or a strawman (if the author knows their reasons and, if legitimate reasons, the author still disregarded them).

Underlying the comment are several fallacious kinds of phrasing, imo.
1. The analogy names kids and candy, and carries the implication that the characteristic of kids is irresponsibility, and it is the irresponsibility that is intended to make the analogy apt (in the writer's view). We may as well substitute "all people who would buy guns are irresponsible". It's a subtle version of ad hominem, and frankly, it is objectionable both to the people who would buy guns and to the kids.
2. Candy is meant to be eaten. Guns are meant to be shot. But that's as far as the analogy can take the simile, and it utterly fails to be apt, as there is no equivalence between a kid's eating candy and mass murder.
3. There is also a form of circular reasoning, that compounds the rhetorical error of arguing from ignorance. The writer uses the question "why do they need guns in the first place" (irrelevant/tendentious) as if only one answer (mass shooting) could be found. But this was his basis, and is the circular "irreasoning" [to coin a word].
4. If his argument is allowed at all, it also amounts to the fallacy of arguing from consequences. "Guns are bad because they lead to mass shootings"

It is unlikely that the writer will accept the corrections and change his mind. What the author of the original question can do is counter the analogy along the lines of 1-4, and hope to win the day with whoever is in the audience.

Giving someone the tools to easily kill hundreds of people does not necessarily mean they'll do it, but then why do they need it (guns) in the first place?

This statement suggests that the reason why people need or want guns is to commit mass shootings, which commits the fallacy of the single cause<>. While I am sure there are people who would buy guns to kill many people, this doesn't seem like the only reason someone would buy a weapon. Other reasons might be making other people know the person has a gun to scare off potential aggressors or perpetrators, having something to use in case someone breaks into their house, etc.

This is like telling a kid they can have a piece of candy, rather, they can go to the store and buy all the candy they want, but they can't eat it.
Is the child going to refrain from eating the candy? Most likely no. So, what's stopping people from carrying out mass shootings?

For an argument that relies on an analogy to work, the analogy has to be similar enough to the actual subject for the conclusion of the analogy to be applied to the subject in a valid way. However, the analogy provided commits a weak analogy<> fallacy, as people having the liberty to buy guns is not necessarily the same as children having the liberty to buy candy. Children have an impulsive desire to consume candy, while gun-buyers don't necessarily have an impulsive desire to walk around killing people. Candy has no other purpose than to be eaten, while guns have purposes other than shooting people indiscriminately, like shooting perpetrators and burglars or having a tool of protective and self-defense benefits.

False equivalence. Weak analogy