This would be a compelling argument…if it was true:
Both sides have a similar recursive argument. The pro-gun side notes that gun control empowers criminals and makes us less safe, which results in more bloodshed and the antis use this to call for MORE gun control.
The anti-gun side notes that more guns means more “Gun Death”, and that leads us to call for less restrictions on gun owners.
Of course where do the mass shootings happen? Where are some of the most violent places in America? How do they compare to where the most liberal gun control laws are, and where the most restrictive are? As gun laws get less restrictive what has the result been?
Also it’s fun to note that our side discusses this issue in rational terms, and welcomes the other side to join. The other side does not join, and when we take the discussion to them they screen their comments or close them entirely. Further they choose to invoke childish and hyperbolic cartoons, which I suspect are more to be rallying propaganda to their own kind rather than persuasive arguments to further their agenda.