I guess, but I can infer two things from this comic:

1. The two girls know each other well enough and are close enough to be familiar with each other’s stuff.
2. For the same reason as above, one girl knows the other is a little… Um… Shall we say… “needy”.

As Hominem:

1. appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2. marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Source; Meriam Webster.

So a question to you, if someone who is a known liar makes an argument, and your counter position is that that someone is a liar and should not be taken for their word, are you making an falacious argument?

If someone were to present a problem, and you have made yourself an active component of said problem, is the person pointing out your part of the problem making a falacious argument?

Think about that. I doubt you will, but this starting to derail, so I’m just going to leave now.

I suggest you go use it, then.

It’s not an ad-hominem if people like you are the reason why a problem continues to be a problem. Considering the position you have chosen to take, my argument can no longer be against the subject itself exclusively, but is also directed against you personally.

It’s a fact. And you’re simply wrong.

Don’t worry! Asteroids cannot hit the same place twice!

Or something…

are pedophiles good people?

Pretty sure the worms think they’re good. And the plants think they’re good once they get a taste of their compost.

Ah yes, because banning guns means they cease to exist.

It’ll take a while to clean up, but ultimately remove the market for guns, and the perceived social status from owning a gun, would reduce this issue over time.

But when it comes to America I’d reckon it’d be a rather slow process. One that simply starts by removing the availability of new guns on the market.

I helped you by putting some of my words in bold.

That’s how criminals in countries like the UK manage to get their hands on guns despite guns being banned.

Yes, the UK. Infamous for all it’s gun crime.

It’s like comparing apples and oranges.

No, it’s comparing smarter humans to backwards primitives.

You know, for a second you had me thinking you were something more. But you turned out to be a cliché American anyway…

Ah well…

You don’t need weapons.

But the U.S. has more guns than people. And a lot of them aren’t registered, so law enforcement doesn’t know they exist.

This is a saturation issue. It’ll take a while to clean up, but ultimately remove the market for guns, and the perceived social status from owning a gun, would reduce this issue over time.

Crimimals wouldn’t have so many unregistered guns in the first place if there weren’t that many guns available from the beginning.

Escalation has proven to not be the answer. You don’t solve the problem that saturation has caused by creating even more saturation.

Plus the people who own them won’t just happily give them up. So if you ban guns, how do you reasonably plan to enforce it?

Well, Australia managed to disarm a significant portion of its population in the past, so it’s possible.

But when it comes to America I’d reckon it’d be a rather slow process. One that simply starts by removing the availability of new guns on the market. Don’t have to start taking away people’s emotional support collections yet, just make sure nobody can start a new one.

… guns are just a tool used to commit those crimes.

Guns are weapons. Weapons exist to threaten, bring harm, if not outright kill another living being.

In areas where hunting is common, maybe the argument for them being useful tools to have can be made. Outside of this specific niche there is no reason for the public availabity of any weapon.

Banning guns would be treating the symptom instead of the problem.

I consider it a symptom and a problem.

No, that’s atrocious.

You don’t solve one endangerment by causing another.

The pavement is for pedestrians, the road is for cars. Between the road and the pavement you need to build a dedicated cycling path, at the expense of the road if necessary.

The Netherlands has shown how this infrastructure makes cities and towns safer and more livable.

There is no excuse.

A bard who can’t read!? What!? Isn’t that one of the professions you go to school for!?

Well it’s a start.

You could also then make sure that America doesn’t have a gun centric industry that is saturating your market with easily accessible guns.

Then also make sure your society is restructured in a way that actually prevents people from mentally breaking down so far that they’ll cause extreme violence.

In the end it will still require banning guns.

Build bicycle infrastructure.