6 thoughts on “Overheard

  1. I think the analogy is a little flawed.

    A car and a gun are both “tools” of sorts, and they are both controlled by people (at least for now). But a gun is a tool designed to inflict harm, and a car is a tool designed to transport people or objects or whatever. These are wildly divergent purposes and really destroy the validity of the statement from the outset. But I’ll entertain the notion a little further and analyse the comparison as I see it.

    The inclusion of the word “sober” is incoherent to the point. So gun laws should only focus on trying to keep guns out of the hands of killers? There is no direct comparison. Further, you need a license to drive a car as well. Drivers are randomly selected for alcohol testing in most developed countries by police. There are speed limits. So, reasonable restrictions on freedoms apply to using cars through law. There is also the ongoing cost involved in licensing oneself and registering ones car, not to mention cost of purchase, maintenance and consumables. So there is an economic restriction on car use.

    So may I present my reverse analogy…

    “Speed limits are like trying to reduce gun massacres by making it tougher for trained marksmen to own semi-automatic rifles.”

  2. Sam: Speeds limits are to cars as gun control is to guns? No. Practically every car on the highway is capable of exceeding the speed limit by a terrifying margin. Nothing limits the speed at which you can drive within the confines of private property, nor the number or type of vehicles which you can own.

    To clarify the meaning of “gun control” in the statement above, it refers to laws that try to prevent violent crime by making gun ownership a crime. With that in mind, you should see that your “reverse analogy” is pure hyperbole.

    Note that sobriety is pertinent because the analogy uses inappropriate use of vehicles (drunk driving, a minority behavior) as a parallel to inappropriate use of guns (violent crime, another minority behavior). In both cases it is the rights of innocents that are most egregiously infringed by ownership prohibitions.

  3. But you are ignoring the fact that these terrifyingly fast cars aren’t deliberately designed to harm people, and that those who oppose gun controls generally aren’t willing to limit their possession of guns to their own property.

    We could argue around this all day, endlessly re-drawing comparisons. Which is part of my original point.

    My reverse analogy is hyperbole just as the original is. I’m not anti-gun necessarily, I’m anti-rhetoric. The original analogy doesn’t argue a point to the other side of the “debate”, it only speaks to supporters of it’s own side. The gun “debate” seems to be bogged down in banal sound-bites like this (from both sides). With this parade of empty “wit” and “cleverness”, it’s no wonder it’s not progressing towards any sort of resolution.

    I have not once known this topic to be truly discussed amongst the concerned parties. It appears to be just endless snark and counter-snark, whipping each other up into a fervour to a point that each side treats the other as completely illegitimate. At least that’s how it’s reported by media outlets. There has to be some respect given to each others point of view and each others reasonable concerns, then maybe it can really be debated (preferably in a non-partisan manner, outside of an election period) and a decision can be made (preferably by referendum).

  4. A more proper analogy: gun control is like trying to make it harder for drunk people to drive cars.

    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. 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 shouldn’t be able to buy guns: over the internet, if they have any history (ever) of mental sickness, if they have ever been arrested. Gun ownership should be a privilege just like a driver license is.

  5. Ultimately, the argument for gun control is based on a very reasonable desire: the desire to be safe and to protect our families. On that note, I actually agree with the gun control crowd.

    However, the fundamental misconception among gun control advocates is that they don’t realize (or refuse to accept) that they are responsible for their own safety.

    The government provides a police *service* to its citizens to help protect them from criminals, but this does not constitute a “right”.

    One cannot have a right that is dependent upon somebody else; as soon as that protector isn’t there to prevent a criminal from causing harm, the victim has just lost his “right” to be protected.

    The right that is at stake here is the right to defend oneself by one’s own efforts. This is an inalienable right, and an armed populace is one that is better able to exercise that right.

Comments are closed.