Guns versus Cars (not about gun control)

This is a classic example of why arguments from analogy are bad, often fallacious, and not the best way to arrive at a reasonable position.

Non-U.S. readers might not be aware of the gun control debate taking place here, and that has been taking place here for a very long time. It is a political debate, and neither side is much concerned with having a position that's data-driven and actually based on the sum of reliable data, just like most political debates.

A fairly common analogy used by both sides in the debate is that of guns versus cars.

One side might say that guns should be licensed like cars. One would need to get a learners permit at a certain age, and after a period of learning, need to take a formal test composed of both a written and practical portion. No one should be allowed to operate a firearm without a license, or a learners permit (and then under appropriate supervision). Often times, this analogy is extended into territory where it's not even an attempt at an analogy anymore, like making sure the tests are very comprehensive, or requiring a license to own a gun (when one isn't required to own a car), and so on and so forth.

The other side might say... that guns should be licensed like cars. That one wouldn't need a license at all unless they were operating the gun in public. That the written test would be extremely trivial, and with all of the answers contained within a fairly short packet, with virtually no delay period to retake the test if it is failed. The practical test would also be extremely trivial, and the people who were so abysmally bad they couldn't pass it could always pay an unscrupulous third party about $500 (bribe included) to bribe the person administering the practical test. The license would be honored under the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution, and thus would be valid in all 50 states. Often times, this analogy is further extended as well, like adding bits about "expanded capacity fuel tanks" and the like (which is OK in some instances, but not OK in others).

Both sides overextend the analogy, and both sides fail to realize that they're arguing by analogy. Both are quick to point out how bad the analogy actually is, or how guns aren't anything like cars, when confronted with the other side using the analogy. One side will point out how there is no second amendment for cars and invoking emotionally charged patriotic rhetoric, whereas the other side will point out that cars are designed for transportation and not killing, also invoking emotionally charged rhetoric.

Certain points of comparison will be ignored by either side. For example, one side will mention a tax on ammunition (analogous to a tax on gasoline), whereas the other side will never mention anything about a tax on ammunition. However, they'll probably mention the rate at which cars can expend gasoline, and the other side won't. They'll naturally both have rebuttals to both points, that generally point out where the analogy of the other side is flawed or overextended. In the examples mentioned, one side will note the justifications regarding why there's a tax on gasoline, and how that wouldn't or shouldn't apply to ammunition. The other will note how there are fuel economy and emissions regulations that vehicle manufactures and owners must adhere to.

There are a couple points of observation that I think are worth noting here:

1. Arguments from analogy are almost always bad arguments. If you notice yourself using them, you're probably wrong, or at least you should find a way to better substantiate your own position. OK, so you're not probably wrong, but you are probably wrong if you can't find a better way to substantiate your own position other than an argument by analogy. Sometimes analogies work, like representing atomic bonds as springs connecting two respective atoms, but the only reason we know those analogies work in the specific instances that they do work is because it's been verified in some other more rigorous way. Just because they work in one respect, like pretending a bond is like a spring connecting two atoms for the purposes of explaining IR Spectroscopy, doesn't mean they'll work when explaining something else, like say, reaction mechanisms.

2. Ideological bias is blinding. People on either side generally can't see, or don't want to see or acknowledge when their arguments are bad. They're often not even interested if their arguments are convincing to the other side, or even potentially convincing; it's more about parroting, and trying to influence people who are yet undecided. This bias can be avoided by not identifying with a particular ideology, though, but instead identify with taking a scientific or realist approach to such things, and holding that truth and accuracy are more important than any ideology.

3. Arguments from analogy can be replaced fairly easily, but at the cost of taking a step or two back form the analogy. It's perfectly valid to examine the different regulatory structures for cars and guns (and even include more items), considering everything, and have a debate not about gun regulations need to tighten or loosen (or both), but instead about the principles by which we should go about regulating inanimate objects. It's even possible to make such a debate based primarily or at least in large part on actual evidence, like say comparing objective measures of benefit versus objective measures of cost or harm. Making a debate about actual facts that are accurately represented is not convenient, though, unless one is more interested in accuracy than ideology.

P.S. This article from a blog I follow does a good job at illustrating my point, both in the actual article, and some of the reverse in the comments section. While not the most "rabid" example, it's probably better than those examples, because virtually everyone participating has a graduate degree and should be well aware of the problems of arguing from an analogy.