Well, it’s nuanced for one thing.

The USA has a violence issue, and legal civilian gun ownership is at most an exacerbating factor. The current regulatory climate towards guns likely causes the most harm in accidents and suicides. But it certainly causes some harm.

Criminals are using illegally sourced guns already, so bans will have no effect there.

Firearms safety courses before you get a license and access to mental health services would be far more effective than yet another weapons ban and more politically palatable to the population. But that doesn’t make for a good wedge issue to rally the faithful behind.

Or an actual social safety net and a living wage, because violence is far more strongly correlated with poverty and income inequality.

Do you care that people are dead, or that guns were used to kill them? Is it okay to do mass murder by bomb or truck?

If you care about deaths, then you make a chart about deaths. If you care about guns, you make a chart about guns.

This is a chart about guns.

Do you really think that dismissively talking down to people telling them they’re delusional is the best way or even a way to win hearts and minds?

I think it’s lying to try to get people to do a good thing.

Deception destroys credibility.

And it makes fun of people who disagree with it.

It alienates, not converts.

Comics like this are just preaching to the choir, and only the ones so fervent they’re blinded by their own self righteousness. It’s so obviously cherry picked and slanted if you’ve looked into the issues at play. It shows no respect for the reader at all, and likely only hardens the opinions of those it disagrees with.

You can’t convince anyone of anything with this kind of trollish virtue signal. It only exists to get the author pats on the back from people in their own camp.

This kind of shitty rhetoric harms the cause. You can’t win hearts and minds with blatant disrespect.

It also has a 0% failure rate in live strikes on targets.

If it was wrong when the USA did it to civilians, it would still be wrong when someone else did it to civilians. Even American ones.

If a government’s actions can justify massacre of their civilians, why are you complaining about the USA taking justified actions against them? Governments are nearly universally terrible. Practically all targets are justified.

Boy, it’s almost like someone’s been working hard at one-upping himself constantly for years, and may eventually alienate some supporters!

But let us be reasonable and treat ever supporting a politician like original sin; these people are cursed forever and can not recant. In fact, let us make out that them not following the newest escalation is some kind of moral flaw on their part. Make sure they know they have no place anywhere but in the camp of those who they used to believe in. That’s productive and useful behavior.

Legally, technically: no.

Philosophically, practically: if you believe it’s murder when you do it, you are a murderer mentally. You decided to kill a person, then followed through with it. And the first time is always the hardest.

I left as soon as I saw something asking for age verification in the client.

It’s never one way. It’s not like owning a gun is driving people to suicide. It’s intersectionality that drives higher numbers.

I personally don’t find it persuasive, just drawing logical parallels isn’t that impressive compared to actual research. But if you can’t understand the analogy, then you’re probably not mentally fit to have a gun anyway.