I was watching this Daily Show episode, and it had me thinking about the use of analogy between Gun Control laws and Driving Laws.
It begins 8 minutes in.
Specifically the analogy was that we regulate vehicles to curtail senseless deaths, in comparison to gun control laws that would for example ban assault weapons or large clips.
Here is where the analogy started to break down for me, and it’s why I’d like your opinions on the matter.
Gun Control Laws allow for licensing for certain heavy weapons in certain states, Driving Laws have a universal license system, a photo-ID with information like your restrictions. So, if we extend the metaphor we should see Gun Control laws which restrict people from ownership or operation of certain classes of weapons based on their training, further Driver’s licenses allow for marks which require glasses while driving for example (disabilities) and so the analogy would be that Gun Control laws should restrict users who suffer from physical or mental impairments that would compromise safety. Another important analogy would be that of the “three strikes” or other license revoking rules due to driving mishaps, for example driving under the influence. Guns don’t have this system as far as I am aware. These are the potentially useful aspects of the analogy that I took away from that comedy clip, but on the opposite end:
Gun Control laws may ban certain weapons because they are too potentially lethal (efficient). In my mind, this is like banning certain cars because they can travel at a potentially higher-than-average top speed, or worse than that, lowering the top speed so that cars travel slow enough that problems with collisions are significantly reduced. Some bans on long clips were suggested, and to me this is analogous to restricting cars’ accelleration speeds because someone might decide he wants to run someone over. The clip mentions that gun manufacterers are immune from being prosecuted for murders from their products, so in analogy should car manufacterers be open to damages if someone kills or injures people with a car they made?
The comparisons I think are useful because they ground what I think is an over-emotional issue into a more detached mindset. People don’t tend to get up in arms when a new vehicle law is up for consideration, or when an accident happens.
I think also, more importantly perhaps, it gives perspective on how our gun laws can sometimes be more symbolic and political than functional. If we want to reduce gun violence without subjecting everyone to unnecessary breaches of privacy and cumbersome law, for example, it might be a better place to start from auto accident prevention than from the mindset of “ban what the killer used.”
DOT sets standards for all types of vehicles to provide “acceptable” levels of safety for the rider(s) and the general public. Guns also have that but there are also traffic laws, again with safety in mind. Regulations analogous to guns become thinner I think, mainly laws and permits to carry and use. Finally, there is infrastructure, worth billions of dollars, provided to give safety to the riding public. As for guns…
The inherent problem with the firearm/automobile analogy is that firearms are weapons while automobiles are designed to transport people and stuff. The danger with an automobile is that the driver may exceed the safe design tolerances of the vehicle or commit an error resulting in 2 tons of steel crashing into something it wasn’t supposed to. Used correctly, a properly designed automobile is pretty safe and can be made safer without restricting its function.
Firearms are designed to blast holes in things. And the things they are designed to legitimately blast holes into are often at least the size of a person. It’s very difficult to put restrictions on firearms without inhibiting their function.
The other factor you have to consider when looking at gun vs automobile deaths is the amount of time spent actively using each of them.
Per the Dept of Transporation, the average person drives 13,476 miles per year in the US. That’s probably over 20,000 hours spent driving per person per year
It’s tough to estimate the average annual gun usage per person but it must be well under 1% of that figure.
Taking this into consideration, it’s obvious that guns are far more dangerous than automobiles.
A few more pieces of the analogy. You mention speed limits - speed are set to be appropriate to the location. You aren’t allowed to go 70 in a school zone, and you aren’t limited to going 25 in the middle of the desert. That is like limitations on where you are allowed to bring guns.
The government gives you a test to see if you are competent to drive. No such thing with guns.
And there are not only standards for cars, but there are street legal requirements, so that you can’t just drive any car you build or modified around town.
If you want to get a car which can go 200 you have to drive it on a track, away from people. If you want to buy a gun with a big clip, you can carry it anywhere.
Target shooting and hunting are two perfectly reasonable justifications for owning a gun. Real hunters don’t need to fire 100 rounds at a deer. I’m fine with someone doing it at a range - just keep the damn gun there.
Not really. The SCOTUS and our constitutional-scholar-in-chief have settled the question about there being an individual right to own firearms. We proceed from there.
That’s because cars exist to moving people and goods and the guns exist to shoot stuff. You’re carrying the analogy past the point of usefulness. In general this is why I don’t like arguing by analogy.
That’s true, but not everybody is starting from that mindset.
ETA: clarifying: SCOTUS rulings carry just as much weight as the specific wording of the Constitution, which is to say “lots, until those are successfully challenged or interpreted differently”. No question is settled in perpetuam, else I hereby claim ownership of Snoop Dogg. The dude is loaded.
Were people in 1800 allowed to own personal cannon? The right to bear (or have) arms was not absolute. I agree with Colbert - anyone can own all the muskets they want. Even semi-automatic ones.
It’s impossible to eliminate gun violence and allow gun ownership at the same time. A non-lethal gun is not really useful as a gun anymore (unless for paintball). The same with trying to eliminate car fatalities without banning cars. However, there are ways to allow ownership and minimize the danger. Automobiles are a good example of that. We make driving as safe as we can, but we also realize that there will be some fatalities. We take reasonable steps to minimize those fatalities.
I don’t think it’s a bad idea to allow access to different levels of firearms based on your training. Also limit the quantity. If nothing else, it provides a barrier to entry which means there would be less of them out there and would slow down or prevent the wackos from getting access to them. It doesn’t mean that a current, stable, sane owner won’t one day snap and shoot up a theater, but it would mean that the weapons are less freely accessible.
I think the automobile analogy can be good in that it shows that reasonable people accept reasonable changes to help minimize the danger. It highlights how unreasonable the gun lobby is when it says that it’s pointless to do anything.
Do you really believe that? Consider some of the various attempts to minimize danger such as red light cameras and photo radar. Courts end up declaring them unconstitutional, sound reasonable? Sound familiar?
Look at attempts to deal with elderly drivers and the blow back there. Sure we have a driving test, at 16, then never again (except in two states).
Then look at attempts to deal with drunk driving. And look at attempts to limit emissions.
Is it really considered unreasonable to point out that something is ineffective? We have speed limits and traffic lights but they are only as effective as the ability to enforce them, neither actually slows/stops a vehicle. Which is oddly enough what the pro-gun lobby says after a mass shooting, “Enforce the current laws.”
And as a reminder: In addition to stealing his mother’s legally owned guns, Adam Lanza also stole her car. Enforcing driving laws would have been just as effective as enforcing gun laws.
Making intersections safer is a good thing and can be done. Just because red-light cameras might not be the best way doesn’t mean you just throw up your hands and give up. What if all the lights stayed red for a few seconds instead of going red-green? Or how about just extending the yellow? I’m just sitting at my desk thinking things up. I’m sure traffic engineers could even think of more.
Yeah? And your point is? Your argument seems to be that if you can’t eliminate a problem, you shouldn’t do anything about it. Even if you can’t eliminate it, you can reduce it. Drunk driving has been reduced. Emission checks help clean the air. Looks like they’re working to me.
So start coming up with other ideas that are effective. The existing laws don’t do anything to prevent future people like Adam from getting guns. He didn’t buy them, he took them from a gun owner in his house.
Why were guns freely accessible to Adam? Those guns should have been securely locked away. It’s clear that many gun owners leave their guns out where other people can get access to them. If they won’t voluntarily lock them up, make it a law that they have to be. The gun owner should be the only one to have access to them.
Practically speaking, the government has equal power to ban guns as it does to ban cars - basically none. Cars may not be constitutionally protected, but their importance to the economy is far greater. My point was that it is unlikely that gun rights were absolute even back then.