I recently posted an answer to this question: Gun Control vs Drunk Driving. There I discussed the merits of the analogy by contrasting to another users answer (thanks again Chris).
However in the comments many people suggested that it was a bad analogy because the subject matter -- guns and cars -- were so different. I wanted to respond to this, however StackExchange has strict rules about the comments section of their site so I had to find another place to do so.
So without further ado I will attempt to address specific criticism of my argument.
Quote:
"The two subjects in question (gun and car) are extremely different in their intended use, design, purpose, and capabilities. These factors decrease the ability to construct a strong analogy" - Doctor Whom*
This is not a valid objection for one simple reason. The purpose of argument by analogy -- or even just creating an analogy -- is not to compare two subjects that are nearly identical. The purpose is too use common background knowledge about a particular subject to expound upon or give a starting reference point for a second subject, for which the audience may or may not have similar background knowledge.
However, lets say for a second that the above objection is valid, and the background knowledge I assumed (and stated at the start of my answer) was not enough to establish these two subjects as close enough for comparison. What would it take then to establish that subject A (cars) is similar enough to subject B (guns) for them to be used in an analogy?
Lets first look at the *legal* uses for our two subjects:
Cars:
Entertainment: Professional racing, Pleasure drives.
Utility: Point A to Point B travel, Move materials.
Pride: Collecting, 'Tricked out rides'.
Guns:
Entertainment: Professional shooters, Casual shooting.
Utility: Hunting, Protection.
Pride: Collecting, 'Tricked out guns'
These lists look surprisingly similar, with multiple categories and multiple uses in each category. Now lets take a look at some of the accidental and illegal uses of each subject:
*Data from 2010 unless otherwise specified*
Cars:
Deaths: 30,196
Drunk driving deaths: 10,228
Accidents: 5,419,000
Injuries: 1,542,000
Guns:
Deaths: 31,672
Homicide: 11,078
Suicide: 19,392
Accidents: 606
The bold point (and subsequent sub-point) I think is the most important stat here but all the data is relevant. Having never done this research before I was generally surprised by how close the death totals were and especially the death totals from our uses at hand -- gun violence, and drunk driving.
This means that beyond the stated background knowledge I stated our two subjects also share these characteristics:
Identical motivations for owning -- if not identical reasons do to differences in utility.
Nearly identical death statistics.
Nearly identical intentional misuse deaths.
This suggests that even if the above statement is true (which I assert that it's not), then we still have enough evidence to say that these two subjects are close enough in motivation of use/purchase and in the actual numbers of human fatalities related to each to use in an analogy.
Well then, if it's not about how related the two subjects are then what is the criteria for forming a good analogy?
I would assert that forming a good analogy relies upon two things.
The first would be the background knowledge of the audience. I think that there was so much disagreement on that particular question because the assumed background knowledge of the audience was not what was assumed. As part of this I think that it's crucial for a good analogy to only need a small amount of background knowledge. Which means that by this criterion the analogy was not so good. It took me a few hours of research to find all the above data strictly from government sources and for the same year.
The second, I feel, is universal to all arguments that are trying to accomplish a purpose. That is that the thing at stake ultimately needs to be verifiable as true or false. Coincidentally the above research, I assert, has shown that the analogy in question is in fact true. Which then would indicate, as I stated in my answer, that it was in fact a good analogy.
*Several people said the same thing, this was just the most cognizant of the comments so I am quoting it.
