@gwr

Fair enough. I should have asked what was meant. And certainly, attributes like “automatic” or “assault” distort rational exchange — as does “anti-gun-nuts” in the cartoon.

anti-gun nut is certainly inflamatory, as are the other terms. The difference is I didnt call you or anyone an anti-gun-nut, nor did I say everyone who wanted a restriction on a gun was a “nut”. I did say however that people who resemble this cartoon (or at least my interpritation of it) are anti-gun-nuts.

Since you are arguing that you do not act like this cartoon depicts then even if you dont like guns, that doesnt qualify you for the “nut” category.

So if you were offended by that term then perhaps you think “the shoe fits” but that is all you making that association.

As for the terms you used, those are not insults against a person so its a bit different to consider them. They are just hyperbolic terms that imply one thing and mean another (for example an AR-15 is often called an assault rifle, yet of all the rifles it is literally one of the least powerful and is not even suitable for deer hunting at any real distance).

The dissimilarities between the other weapons and guns are imo so striking, that it is hard to really take the cartoon more serious

If you saw the cartoon in isolation I could understand you thinking that is the whole point and maybe drawing that conclusion. But my statement about the cartoon, and thus my point, was far more general than that. I stated more generally that anti-gun-nuts tend to use entierly different logic when talking about violence or death related to things outside of guns, as compared to guns. So the comparison isnt just against other weapons, it is about their consistency of logic in a much more general sense.

You can defend yourself against attacks from the other weapons and the perpetrator needs to approach you closely

For the ones pictured maybe, but even if we limit ourselves to the context of the cartoon (and not my own) there are plenty of less regulated ways to kill people that is far far more effective than a gun en mass. A tank of CO is readily available without ID or regulation. A murderer could easily take a small tank on a train in his backpack. Open the gas up and leave it as he leaves the train. Assuming the stops take a hot minute (not int he city) everyone would be dead by the time they reach their next stop. Kills at a distance, silently, cant be defended against easily (as any defense is easily cirtcumvented by just picking a different gas that is pison).

I could literally sit here and list 100 different weapons more effective at mass murder than guns that are easily accessible and untracked… So while your argument may work for the fairly limited scope of weapons directly depicted int he cartoon it utterly fails once you look beyond that, even within the scope of just weapons.

What is the likeliness of getting a serious or even fatal wound accidentally from cleaning those other weapons (or tools as you say).

Bodily autonomy is sacred, my body, my choice, none of your business. NO ONE has a right to tell me what i can do with my own body or what risks I can put myself in.

But to answer your question, it depends on the person. For a responsible gun owner the liklihood is near 0. For an irresponsible one the liklihood is probably rather high. As for the average, i dont care because the individual is the one with the right to decide if they think they are in the high risk or low risk category and decide for themsleves if they want to risk that or not, just as it should be.

Honestly, that cartoon to me looks as stupid as they can get. And it tries to be “sophisticated” and “clever”—but imho it just is not.

I care more about my opinion than any speculation ont he opinion of the author. Cartoons are not meant to be complete arguments, so while you are right that when viewed as a complete argument it has holes the expectation is you think beyond the cartoon itself, which is almost always an oversimplification due to the medium.

(Interesting, that you claim people would be alive had they carried a gun—I doubt your ability to be simulate alternate real scenarios to a reliable degree here…)

Thats just a bad faith argument. You know what is implied. Without a gun he had no options and is dead now. With a gun sure he may have still died, but he would have stood a chance, and given the circumstances reason would suggest that chance would have been monumentally higher with a gun than without.

@LouisIngenthron