X is not a problem because Y is a bigger problem?

I saw a meme which said this, "2/3s of all gun deaths are due do suicide while only 1 percent are due to mass shootings". I think this argument could be paraphrased as "mass shootings are not a problem because suicide deaths are a bigger problem". This is wrong because suicide, while definitely a problem, is irrelevant to the problem of mass shootings.

I could use an argument from absurdity to further explain why this reasoning is wrong. If X is not a problem because Y is a bigger problem then all problems bigger than X must be solved before X can be solved. This suggests that we must find a cure for cancer and heart disease before we can take on the problem of mass shootings. In reality all problems can be tackled simultaneously. There is no need to tackle big problems before small ones unless the two problems are directly related, which they are not here. You are not going to stop mass shootings by first stopping gun related suicides.

I know this argument could be called a non sequiter, it does not follow that mass shootings are not a problem because suicide is a bigger problem, but maybe other fallacies apply to it as well. Often one line of reasoning is guilty of many fallacies

We need to be very careful about assuming what is meant by a statement, otherwise we can be committing the strawman fallacy .

2/3s of all gun deaths are due do suicide while only 1 percent are due to mass shootings

Whomever did say/write this could have meant "mass shootings are not a problem because suicide deaths are a bigger problem." But I would think it is more likely they meant "mass shootings take far few lives than suicides, so don't be mislead by 'deaths by gun' numbers in thinking that these are all school children who were murdered." I don't know what the person meant, but let's ask. "What's your point?" is an excellent question that should be asked frequently. Another technique to avoid creating a strawman is to rephrase for them... "So are you saying that mass shootings are not a problem because suicide deaths are a bigger problem?" Now if they say "yes," you can lash out all you want on how unreasonable they are :)

This argument may be setting up a false dilemma: "Either one form of gun death or the other - which one do you want to tackle?"

While in fact one can agree with the statement that X (rates mass murder in schools) is smaller that Y (rates of suicide by firearm) and add in a few others like Z for instance (the rate of toddlers killing themselves and/or their playmates having innocently come across a firearm).

All these are instances of the same phenomena - guns in civil society - and can be dealt with through the same measure: some sort of gun control.