I tend to agree with the analogy you used, however I think it is somewhat in error. Gun control is like using the defibrillator on the ambulance attendant who brought the heart attack victim into the hospital. It doesn't work on the real problem but it gives the ones who don't need it an unnecessary jolt and makes their lives unpleasant.
You're right. I think both analogies are valid.
The way I tilt my head at it, most of the people who are in favor of tougher gun laws mistakenly believe that no guns = no violence. I think that's dumb. We're a violent culture, for better or worse. Taking away guns won't take away the urge for people to hurt other people, it will just mean they'll figure out other ways to do it.
But the real reason to oppose sweeping changes in gun laws points back to what I believe (and I assume many others) is the original intent of the 2nd Amendment - Protection from a tyrannical government. Despite large segments of our population believing different, we've never been more than a few presidential terms from a government running amok. If we as a people give the government more control (or allow them to have more) where does it stop? How do we know that power will never be abused? We don't. This is the reason so many we're opposed to the Patriot Act. Even though I was in favor of it, I could understand the argument. In the shadow of 9/11, it was an easy call. I don't want another terrorist attack and the Patriot Act will stop that... right? If that's true, and the government never abuses the power, it's a win. But what if...
It's occurred to me many times when debating our rights in this country that the 2nd Amendment is the one that protects all others. Seems very simple to me, yet there are those that can't see it.
Here's to hoping we can all get along, talk about it, and go shoot our guns afterwards.
