Why Do Gun Control Arguments Boil Down to Silly Analogies?

I read a quote on Casey Bisson’s blog of a quote from Andy Skelton’s blog. It went like this: “Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.”

A more proper analog would be that gun control is like trying to make it harder for drunk people to drive cars. Or even better, gun control is like trying to make sure people can drive safely before giving them a driver’s license. Of course that doesn’t sound so crazy so it is a lot harder to make gun control seem like a bad thing.

Personally, I think that gun ownership is stupid. Guns don’t stop crime and all it takes is looking at other countries with strict gun laws to see what the result is. It isn’t defenseless families killed by maniacs, but a safer country to live in with less violent crime. If people insist on owning guns then that is their choice, but as a country everyone in the US should take a stand and say certain people should never be allowed to buy guns: over the internet, if they have any history (ever) of mental sickness, or if they have ever been arrested. These three rules alone would likely decrease violent crime. What I find most interesting about the analogy is that it hits on something I believe people should consider, and that is that gun ownership should be a privilege just like a driver’s license is.

"A more proper analog would be that gun control is like trying to make it harder for drunk people to drive cars. Or even better, gun control is like trying to make sure people can drive safely before giving them a driver’s license. Of course that doesn’t sound so crazy so it is a lot harder to make gun control seem like a bad thing."

Not really. With gun control one hopes to reduce the number of violent crimes in an area. If I want to own a gun but not for any illegal purposes, gun control makes it harder for me to get a gun.

"Personally, I think that gun ownership is stupid. Guns don’t stop crime and all it takes is looking at other countries with strict gun laws to see what the result is. It isn’t defenseless families killed by maniacs, but a safer country to live in with less violent crime."

Other countries? Like Enland who's strict gun controls have done nothing to stem the growth of crime? Or Switzerland who's gun regulations are so lax they make the United States look like Nazi Germany? I hear they've got major crime problems...Oh wait, no they don't.

"If people insist on owning guns then that is their choice, but as a country everyone in the US should take a stand and say certain people should never be allowed to buy guns: over the internet, if they have any history (ever) of mental sickness, or if they have ever been arrested. These three rules alone would likely decrease violent crime."

First off, buying guns over the Internet is not an easy thing to do. Any gun shipped over the Internet leaves it's originator from a federally licensed dealer and it's destination MUST be a federally licensed dealer. Anything short of that is already illegal.

Mental sickness I could buy, but IIRC that's already covered in the Brady Bill. It's just a matter of getting the local .gov to comply with the process. (Virginia, I'm looking at you.)

Arrested. That's the tricky part. While to some degree I agree with this, when you start talking any one who has ever been arrested for anything should start having rights restricted you start down a VERY dark road.

First guns, then your right to the 5th amendment because you've been involved in criminal activity before so you should know something about the crime that happened in your neighborhood a week ago, so on and so forth. And all this just for being arrested?

What this will do is start to restrict the 1st amendment right off the bat. If someone needs only be arrested to lose the right to bear arms, then one would need only attend...oh say a protest against the war in Iraq. Lotsa people get arrested at those on weak charges at best. It ain't right but it happens. So say you want to rally for a protest. Well you can forget the support of anyone who ever wants to own a gun (even for hunting) because they don't want to be arrested.


At any rate I'd like to take a moment to say that I'm glad that the Brady site has taken to opening up a forum. I hope this will open up some intelligent discussions from both sides of the gun issue. I am a big fan of the 2nd amendment, but I do realize that there does need to be some amount of regulation going on.

His analogy is correct as most firearms used in crimes are illegal. Legal firearms aren't being used in crimes. Targeting legal citizens with gun control measures to reduce something they aren't doing anyway is not only ineffective, but a complete waste of resources.

No prohibition laws in the history of the world have been successful.

And as far as gun control countries being safer, that's a load of crap. The EU has on average the same if not higher violent crime rates that the US has. The only thing we have a slight edge on is murder, but it's a whopping 2 people per 100,000. Not really the epidemic the fear mongering irrational people against tools would have you believe.

You can find a study on EU crime rates off of this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Interna...and_EU_ICS


And as far as your assertion that guns don't stop crime there have been studies that completely disagree. Try this one out. Study: “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun.” By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz.

Both criminologists that authored this study found that firearms are used to stop crime by private citizens 700,000 to 2,000,000 times a year. All of which places it well above crimes committed with firearms.

Restricting legal ownership of guns and restricting the rights of people to protect themselves only emboldens criminals to do what they do best crimes,criminals don't obey laws so you can make farting in public criminal and the only people that will fart in public are criminals and the occassional I didn't realise I left the house with a felony waiting to rip normally law abiding citizen but sometimes we do break laws we never even heard of.The lady that championed anti gun laws in I believe it was england was stabbed to death by a family member yesterday,the fact he didn't shoot her and only stabbed her i'm sure made her very happy that her law worked or did it had she had a gun and he tried to stab her and she shot him she would still be alive but anti gun people can't wrap their closed minds around that thought.

First, gun ownership is not a privilege, it is a right. But my main reply to this is your comment that gun ownership should be like a driver's license.

I am a gun owner, and would love to see gun ownership nationwide treated like a driver's license.
-It is valid in the entire country. That would mean that I do not become a criminal if I accidently cross a state line while carrying a firearm.
-People would be able to have their licese at between 16 and 18 with a simple test
-Having an expired license or other administrative paperwork not in order equals a fine, not a felony
-No background check to buy a vehicle - an item that kills many more people in the US than guns do


The list can go on, but you get my point. Driving is a privilege, but it is given out freely, even to convicted felons and others who would not be eligible to legally exercise their right.

Careful what you ask for... you may find that driving stops being given out freely (though I doubt it), or they'll make gun ownership a special privilege that one needs to jump through a zillion and five hoops to get; unless you are a politician, well-connected, rich, LEO, etc.

Hi..
Thanks for sharing the post and the information which you share is really good one..

I have a theory on this. (The topic of the article that was posted)

It probably is not original by any means, but for lack of anyone to give credit to...

In the discussions I have had with other people, of many varying degrees of opinion, analogies are almost always used. I notice that I use them almost exclusively to try to put the subject in a perspective that the other person could more readily relate to. Not everyone was raised around firearms. Not everyone has fired hundreds of thousands of rounds at targets of all descriptions, from a huge variety of cartridges and platforms. I know I haven't. Familiarity and understanding do not come without exposure, and as people we often make conclusions based on little or nothing. So analogies are used to place things in context with what we have a better grip on. Things that most people do use every day. Situations that most of us could more easily picture and relate to.

Analogies are used to foster understanding. And whatever your point of view, it is a useful tool.

You can't always beat people into believing as you do (figuratively, rather than actual bludgeoning or some such). Even if you could, it really wouldn't be ethical. In the end, surely it would be better to lead them to knowledge and understanding, and allow them to push away their fear or rushed judgments. One of those "You can lead a horse to water..." allusions .

But how are these criminals getting guns in the first place? Are they not stealing them from legal gun owners' homes or from gun stores? They had to get them somehow over the years. If I was a criminal and needed a gun and knew I couldn't get it at a store or a show or from a fellow criminal, I would burglarize someone's home who I knew had guns. If no one had hand guns and assault rifles, I would be out of luck or either resort to the dangerous job of trafficking weapons into the country.