How An Analogy Works.

Much of the gun-control debate in recent weeks has not really been a debate at all.  Each side is speaking past the other, neither taking the time to understand the other.  Part of the problem is failure to understand certain features of logic, especially the analogy.  Analogies are not metaphors or similes, and they have rules that make them work (or not if they are not followed).  Here is a good example of failure to understand how an analogy works:

Mr. Howe's original analogy may be expressed this way: banning assault weapons is to mass gun violence as banning wrapping paper is to paper cuts.  His implication is, of course, that banning assault weapons is "legislative idiocy" (which it may very well be).  Nevertheless, and this is the important part, an analogy (in this case, a four term analogy--A:B::C:D) suggests that the first and third terms are similar, and the second and fourth are similar.  Take the mathematical analogy, 1:2::4:8.  The analogy establishes that the relationship expressed in the first analog (1:2) and that expressed in the second (4:8) are the same, viz. half.  But notice that you can examine the terms individually as well: 1 and 4 are similar in that they are half of 2 and 8 respectively.  Thus, in Mr. Howe's analogy, despite his objections to the contrary, the Newtown shooting is compared to a paper cut.  This comparison is precisely where Mr. Howe's analogy breaks down (as all analogies do at some point).  However, this is just one example of the faulty use of analogy in this debate.  One Twitter user compared banning guns to prevent gun-violence to banning utensils to prevent obesity.

And on Sean Hannity's show on Fox, Ann Coulter asked:

The simple answer is that in certain areas gun permits are a matter of public record (which is how The Journal News got their information), while medical records are not.  Coulter makes the point that such permits should not be public, and perhaps they shouldn't; but the analogy is not only useless to making the point, it's actually backwards.  I suggest we stop using analogies altogether in this debate.  They are unnecessary given the amount of information we have on gun violence in the US and elsewhere.