Quite often people championing gun control will cite automobiles as an example of how guns should be regulated: "You have to pass a test to have a license to drive, you should have to pass a test to have a gun", etc. Of course technically that's more of an analogy to carry, since all of the requirements are for driving a car on the public roads, not actually owning one or even driving it on private property. But I recently composed what it would REALLY mean for cars and guns to be treated the same:
"Imagine a country in which technically you could get official permission to drive a car (thanks to an ancient provision in that country’s constitution about the “right to travel”), but the official policy was to try to hinder and obstruct as many people as possible from owning or driving cars. That to control pollution, discourage urban sprawl, conserve energy and eliminate traffic deaths, many people declared that you should have to have a “need” to own an automobile. Or that no one should have a car that could go faster than 30 mph, or go more than 100 miles before needing to fill up. Where countries like Japan were held as examples of how mass transit could almost eliminate private automobiles. That the “right to travel” meant state-chartered bus companies, not private vehicles. And where every death due to a drunk or murderous driver was sensationalized in the news and declared the fault of car owners stubbornly refusing to join the rest of the civilized world; and how the evil A.A.A. was blocking “sensible” car-control laws.
That’s the difference between gun control in the USA and a country like Switzerland, in which the regulations are there so that as many people as possible can own guns. I for one would gladly accept Swiss-level regulations provided it was clearly understood that that was to keep the people armed, not step one in disarming them."