An Analogy to Make a Point

This analogy is all hypothetical, but perhaps it will make a point for people who don’t quite understand.

Let’s say that a group of politicians realized that about 40,000 Americans die each year in car accidents. These include single-car accidents, car collisions with other cars, cars running over or hitting people on bikes or pedestrians, cars hitting deer or other animals; virtually any human death where a car was involved. A lot of these deaths are children. Since there seems to be a public outrage over the large number of vehicular deaths, the politicians decide to do something about it. After all, except for the children, these are voters who keep the politicians in power.

One politician notices that several thousand of the deaths of children have to do with blue cars. He/she argues that it is obvious that blue cars are dangerous and wants to ban all blue cars, saying that this will save the children. It is clear that anyone who isn’t in favor of banning blue cars doesn’t care about children, they say. They have quite a bit of support among the group because they are persuasive and because nobody wants others to think that they don’t care about children.

Several locations ban blue cars, claiming that they are assault vehicles; a term they make up to make the cars sound evil and wicked. The death toll from cars doesn’t drop, but the death toll from blue cars does, so they say that it is a victory. They are saving lives.

Another politician says that the death toll is still too high. They recommend licensing, registration, testing, and strict laws regarding anyone driving a car that is involved in a fatality. All of these things are required already, but they are making a stand to make the voters think that they are actually doing something to lower the death rate.

Other politicians want to ban large gas tanks, car radios, seat covers, and large-sized cars because some of these have been found in cars that have killed people. 

Still other politicians want to ban all cars, except for those used by police and emergency personnel. They rationalize that if there are no cars, nobody will get killed by the evil vehicles. Nevermind the fact that more people will have to ride horses or use alternate means of transportation which are all quite capable of being involved in deaths. Also, the fact that millions of people use cars daily without mishaps and many lives are saved by cars every year.

All of these politicians are missing a critical point in their rush to secure votes by making voters think that they are doing something about the deaths; they are ignoring the drivers. Cars that are just sitting there rarely kill anyone. The driver is also responsible for the car they are driving when they are driving it. By focusing entirely on the cars, their attention is totally off of the people who are responsible for the deaths. Instead, they are claiming that the cars are what is causing the large number of fatalities.

As you may have gathered, the analogy has to do with guns and gun control. Some politicians seem to think that the guns apparently arbitrarily go out and kill people. They go after the banning of accessories, certain kinds of guns based mostly on appearance, or try to ban guns entirely. They seek to add new rules, regulations, and laws, ignoring the fact that there are already over 10,000 gun laws in the US. In fact, murder is illegal in the US, but that apparently hasn’t had much effect on gun deaths or other homicides. Nearly all of the mass shootings in the US in the past couple of years have also occurred in places where guns were banned, such as in schools. Those laws and bans didn’t help save lives.

The analogy is weak in that area, though. With gun laws, bans, and what-have-you, the rules are only followed by law-abiding citizens who aren’t the ones who are killing people, except in the case of defense. Adding rules and regulations only affect the people who aren’t committing any crimes, to begin with. This is the weakness of the analogy because if a particular car was banned, it would be obvious who was breaking the law. It isn’t obvious when a person is in possession of a gun illegally. 

People might say that guns aren’t necessary. I’d counter with, “Neither are cars.” We’ve lived without a car, even within the past few years. That time was one of much-increased danger. I can drive to our hospital in about two minutes. If I had to call an ambulance in an emergency, it would take at least five minutes for the ambulance to get here, then more time to get to the hospital. This is a very small rural town, too, and we are only about a mile from the hospital. If a person is having a heart attack and I don’t have a car, even with CPR, their chances aren’t good if I have to rely on an ambulance.

Likewise, if a bear, rapist, or murderer breaks into my house with the objective of killing, destroying, and injuring the people here, assuming that I even have time to make a phone call, the police are five to ten minutes away, assuming that they aren’t involved elsewhere in the county. We’d stand no realistic chance if we must wait for the police. If I have a deer rifle that is easy to get to, though, our chances of survival increase significantly. It is no wonder that most police and police organizations are in favor of gun possession by law-abiding citizens. 

I don’t know if my analogy helps to understand what is going on with the gun control controversy or if it just muddies the water. The problem of homicides will continue at least until we address the cause and not the tool that is used. A tool doesn’t do anything without someone to use it. It honestly isn’t difficult to understand.