The 2nd Amendment Diet
Imagine ten hypothetical democratic and prosperous nations of the world, nine of which adhere to similar diets. The tenth nation follows a radically different diet than the others–it consumes far more sugar—and it alone suffers from an epidemic of obesity and obesity-related diseases.
This information alone is insufficient to conclude that the tenth (obese) nation MUST adopt the diet of the other nine nations if it wishes to solve its obesity problem. But if that nation were to consider consuming less sugar, it would be unreasonable to fault it for being simply wrong-headed. On the other hand, if that nation were to double-down and insist that the ONLY way to solve its obesity problem was the consumption of ever greater quantities of sugar, one might sensibly conclude that this nation is more attached to sugar than solving its obesity problem.
It’s an analogy, and as such it’s limited. I get that. And it’s stylized and hypothetical, and the real world isn’t so simple. Sure. I’m on board with that. But when one considers the relatively unique role of the 2nd Amendment among democratic nations of the world as well as the U.S.’s unique rates of gun ownership and gun violence–at least among advanced democracies–the analogy may be revealing about our oft-misguided way of thinking.
If the analogy is misleading in a significant way, please let me how. I plan to continue using the analogy unless I’m persuaded it’s a faulty or weak analogy–but one cannot know that unless it’s first vetted a bit.