they were and that I am. Instead of addressing my arguments, he attacked me. I do think that the phrase ad hominem applies there. If it's the wrong phrase to use for such a situation, then at least it still shows the same weakness in debating as I was pointing out.

I suppose that your bringing up strawmen as an example isn't a strawman, either?

As for your addressing my original question. You are right in that it's not the most logically sound argument ever made. It wasn't intended to be nor did I present it as such. I was bemused, because of the difference in thinking. It comes from my basic belief that generally, bringing weapons into a situation means that they are more likely to be used, and that generally, it's better when no weapons are being used. Your bringing up keys and locked doors isn't really equivalent, because the child isn't going to use the key to shoot 26 people with afterwards.

However, that wasn't the point he alluded to as incoherent. His issue seemed to be with my question where I asked if a shoot out between mother and son would be preferable over a situation where neither had guns at all. He appeared to get emotional over the question of choosing between killing your own child or letting them kill you, kill 26 people and then kill him/herself. Which is a nice hypothetical, I suppose, but not the one I was asking, nor a very useful one.