The absolute number of shootings might be increasing, but the rate of shootings and homicides have been decreasing. Both the absolute and relative number of children dieing from shootings has decreased. 

On the otherhand, what are the costs of criminalizing millions of Americans for owning guns? How many lives would be ruined in said scenario? Who would be disproportionately affected? How would such an endeavor be enforced?

I think a rate of gun deatha lower than that of children who die from drowning in pools, and one which is declining is certainly good and an improvement.

Both of these posts seem to be accomplishing little more than creating strawmen, and do virtually nothing to address the topic at hand...

When the statistic have more error than rights it becomes completely pointless.

Nothing more than argue about the true number of incidents.  As we should.

humans/men are made from tissue, water, bone etc etc etc, it is literally impossible to build a man from straw... what does that fact do for your argument?

but regardless i already said that i was expressing my observing a trend in gun control advocates and that's all

" Both the absolute and relative number of children dieing from shootings has decreased. "

but can we agree that the shooting of just one child a year is too much?

how many children are you willing to sacrifice a year for your right to bear arms?

(Not commenting on what either of you have said before this, just the bolded).

That's precisely why the word "strawman" is used. It's usually used to refer to someone arguing against a person that doesn't exist, just the vague representation of one. Thus, a strawman (since, as you say, real people aren't made of straw).

I expect you're joking, but it's the internet so eh :D

I don't see how it is a strawman or irrelevant to the topic at hand. 

Tulipanzo said, "only rising due to the negligence of U.S. government to act and ban the fucking things."

Any ban must be enforced, which would in fact criminalize millions of people who refuse to comply and force cops to confront possible gun-owners, leading to many more deaths of otherwise innocent people. 

Before jumping in, how about read the conversation? Thanks! 

give up all your guns and let these guys take all of your responsiblity

they only care for your safety... so why not?

Fair enough. Strange that you would not include that in your quote, but fair enough. I often see individuals jumping to extreme minority opinions as a way of handwaving all the middle ground of what "gun control" can mean, but I'll agree that "ban the fucking things", while not exactly well defined, can really only be interpreted one way.

I've personally never seen that opinion and I am someone who frequently advocates for gun control. I mean, gun control advocates tend to be generally on the "anti-war" side of things. But overall, you are basically just throwing non-sequiturs into the conversation in order to demonize a group of people you disagree with (or agree with? I honestly can't tell).