So the following image was shared by one of my friends on Facebook:
This image's attempt to equate guns and cars is flawed on many levels. The main purpose, the safety advancements, and the licensing process of guns and cars are all vastly different. This image does a better job of advocating for gun control than against it.
First of all, the sole purpose of a gun is to shoot things, threaten to shoot things, or be in a display case saying "this used to shoot things back in the day." The sole purpose of a car is not to smash into things. Cars are meant to get people quickly from point A to point B. Sure, guns are generally not purchased specifically to shoot another person. As a side note, they are purchased with this intent vastly more often than someone buys a car in order to smash it into someone else. Regardless, To say that the difference between shooting an animal or a target and shooting a person is equivalent to the difference between driving safely and crashing your car into another car is quite a stretch to say the least.
Secondly, the image compares drunk drivers to violent people who are presumably not drunk. If a police officer got drunk on the job and discharged his handgun and killed an innocent person, I doubt anyone would blame the gun. Even if we change it to "We don't blame cars for car accidents", it's still wrong because we DO blame cars for car accidents. That's why there are so many advancements in car safety each and every year. Car companies sometimes base their entire ads on how safe their cars are in various safety tests. When was the last time guns were made safer? Someone on Facebook mentioned mandatory child locks on guns which was passed in 1997 (Chicago Tribune Article). That was 16 years ago. This 2012 Slate article: (Technology to Make Guns Safer), which actually references the analogy between guns and cars as well, talks about new gun safety technologies including trigger sensing that can make a gun only fire when the owner is the one holding it. Gun manufacturers are very resistant to these safety measures. Why? Because, as mentioned in the article, "gun makers are immunized against lawsuits" related to the guns they make. Car manufacturers, on the other hand, are responsible for making cars safer. Gun manu-facturers should be responsible for making guns safer as well.
Finally, guns and cars are vastly different in how their use is controlled. To get a driver's license, one has to pass both written and field tests that show that they are capable of driving a car. They have to fill out numerous forms and submit an application for a driver's license. Then they have to register their car with the state and get a license plate for it. Also, they have to renew both the license plate and driver's license throughout their life. Additionally, if they want a license to drive, say, a motorcycle, they need to get a completely different permit to show that they are capable of operating that vehicle safely as well. Is the same true for guns? Not by a long shot (pun intended). A bit of research (Gun laws in the US by state) shows that 36 of the 50 states do not require a permit for either long guns or handguns. Why is it easier to obtain a gun than it is to get a car? We should have a process similar to this: (California Firearms Permit Information) throughout the US so that people who own guns legally are fully capable of using that gun safely. Gun permits should apply only to a specific type of gun as different guns require different skills. Also, gun owners should be held responsible for keeping their guns out of the hands of children or other people without a permit, just like car owners are held responsible for making sure their car is used safely by others (Relevant Car Laws).
In summary, the US should treat guns and gun ownership closer to the way it treats cars and car ownership. I think the image at the beginning of this post may have been created by a supporter of gun control to see how many people against gun control would make his argument for him.
