Frank Larsen argues for stricter gun control. It appears that Frank wants to abolish access to guns altogether. But if law-abiding citizens can't own a gun, then they will have no means of defending themselves against criminals. Obviously Frank's argument is no good.
A) False cause.
B) Argument against the person, abusive.
C) Straw man.
D) No fallacy.
E) Red herring.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Frank's argument is being misrepresented as wanting to completely abolish access to guns, when in fact he may only be advocating for stricter control measures. The suggestion that law-abiding citizens would have no means of defending themselves against criminals is a separate argument and not necessarily related to Frank's position on gun control. This is an example of a straw man fallacy.

Frank Larsen Argues for Stricter Gun Control