Are bullseye that different from crosshairs? Of course not. However, the intended audience is: the imaginations of liberals and leftists who support a restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment are not stoked by images of bullseyes. They generally have no pathetic investment in crossbows and so appeals of this sort are less likely to be effective than those like the one above. In terms of rhetoric, then, only the first of these two maps can be designated as “violent” because only it attempts to persuade its audience into action by stoking imaginations by referencing shooting things.
So, the lesson is: members of the political Left are allowed to be violent because their "intended audience" is comprised of people who "support a restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment." Therefore, they couldn't possibly be prone to any violence. In this narrative, only conservatives could incite violence, because only conservatives own guns.
Finally, I get it. Violent rhetoric is ok for the lefties.