The consistency question.
If danger alone justified a ban, what else would go?
The consistency question can open a mind.
Used carelessly, it can also close one.
Many arguments for restricting firearms rest on one idea: guns are dangerous, so access should be limited.
The consistency question asks the listener to apply that idea evenly.
Cars, alcohol and swimming pools are dangerous too, yet society manages their risks without banning them for responsible adults.
The Numbers Behind the Question
40,901
people died in motor vehicle crashes in the United States in 2023, according to NHTSA.
About 178,000
deaths each year are attributed to excessive alcohol use, according to the CDC.
46,728
firearm deaths in 2023 (CDC), of which about 58 percent were suicides and about 38 percent were murders.
The point is not that one danger cancels out another.
The point is that a free society usually responds to danger with training, responsibility and punishment for misuse, not with bans on ownership.
Three Ways to Ask It
Use It Carefully
Acknowledge the harm first: “Every one of those deaths matters.”
Use it to wave away a tragedy. It sounds callous.
Ask it as a real question and listen to the answer.
Treat it as a gotcha to end the conversation.
Accept differences the listener raises, such as purpose or intent.
Insist cars and guns are identical in every way.
Bring it back to policy: “So what would actually reduce misuse?”
Stop at “cars kill too” and declare victory.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Benjamin Franklin, 1755
- 2A Conversation Skills – the full learning path and the CALM Method
- Conversation Trainer – practice with twelve real scenarios
- Words Matter – accurate language that keeps the focus on the criminal