Youngest hitman, only 15

[August]

Originally Posted by CCIP

On the other hand, do you think that someone in that house owning a gun would've changed anything? This kind of attack isn't something you can defend from, really.

No it's not but according to popular gun control theory the murderer shouldn't have needed a shotgun.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Do you contend that Augusts position is an accurate one?

I'll start with his original statement.

Originally Posted by August

I thought gun control was supposed to prevent these things from happening.

A perfectly valid observation. Gun-control advocates claim that denying guns to everyone means that gun crimes will be stopped. Here is a society with strong gun controls, and a 15-year-old boy killed someone with a shotgun. Where is the strawman?

I don't necessarily agree with, or even understand his argument about the killer needing a shotgun, but I don't see the strawman there either.

That's my point as well. Gun control does not stop gun crime.

His stated point, and I do agree. Argue against it if you like. I'm not saying I'm sure I'm right, but it is my belief, and according to August it is also his belief, and the point he's trying to make. So again, where is the strawman?

No it's not irrelevant. The case has been made repeatedly that restricting private gun ownership eliminates the need for criminals to use firearms in the commission of their crime. That concept was not demonstrated in this case. Just because it does not also demonstrate that firearms ownership would have prevented the crime, well now that is irrelevant.

Gun control disarms victims. It does not, as this incident shows, disarm criminals.

A positive case made for his argument. He may or may not be right, but he clarifies his argument and attempts to make his point. Where is the strawman?

Second I am not trying to make the case that gun ownership would have stopped this murder from occurring. I am only using it as a counterpoint to the claims that taking away legal gun ownership will somehow stop criminals from using guns when they commit crimes.

Here he restates his point, and adds a disclaimer concerning what he is not trying to prove. Strawman?

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It sure don't look like Kansas

Who is that strange figure?

Off to see the wizard.

Now what was it the strawman required?

Don't you mean may it be ripped to pieces on a regular basis?

Here we have a set of irrelevant jabs intended to minimize August's points, while not actually addressing or countering them; basically a trolling attack that serves no purpose other than to antagonize.

I think we've found our strawman.

Gun-control advocates claim that denying guns to everyone means that gun crimes will be stopped.

Thats false twice, or even three times if you look.

Here is a society with strong gun controls

Are you kidding?

Then you go on to passages I didn't quote.
But anyway lets deal with some

His stated point, and I do agree.

I agree, gun control does not stop gun crime, but only an idiot would claim it did so putting that up as a position to oppose is pure bull.
Effective gun control may reduce gun crime but the only way to stop gun crime is to make gun crime legal.

A positive case made for his argument. He may or may not be right, but he clarifies his argument and attempts to make his point. Where is the strawman?

Its in the wording again, he builds a false claim to argue against.
In this case "eliminates"
In each instance he is taking it to absolutes to make a "good" case to stand against but each time is instead making a "false" case to knock down.

Here we have a set of irrelevant jabs intended to minimize August's points

No, there you have 4 jabs which minimize augusts points and a response to Jims funny about prison "recreation" activities

If you look at the Darkfish exchange you can see it clearly, he takes a position and changes it in the same way so he can knock it, classic strawman