Identify the fallacy committed in the following argument: 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.

The fallacy committed in the argument is: straw man.

Explanation:

The straw man fallacy occurs when the original argument made by someone is misinterpreted. The person who is arguing against it, thus, ends up addressing something that was not really said.

In this case, Larsen's argument is for stricter gun control. But the speaker goes from that to "Frank wants to abolish access to guns altogether." There was quite a leap between what was actually said and what was interpreted. Stricter gun control does not mean abolishing guns completely. Thus, we have an example of straw man fallacy.

i don't know the answer to this