Gun Control and Immunizations – An Analogy

Gun Control and Immunizations – An Analogy

The Premise

Yesterday my son and I were discussing the topic of gun control.  His position is somewhat more pro-arms than mine.  In trying to explain my position I thought of using the analogy of immunizations to explain my point of view.  At first, I hesitated thinking the 2 topics were so unrelated it would be silly to proceed.  But I decided to try it anyway.  As I proceeded, I was struck by the similarities of the 2, at first, seemingly unrelated topics.

Sides of the Argument

The controversy exists because each side of the gun control argument has its pros and cons.  This applies similarly when you are deciding whether or not a vaccine should be given.  

Benefits vs. Risks Analysis

When the CDC advisory panel on Immunization Practices meets to write the recommendations on vaccines, they analyze the data from both an individual’s perspective and a public health point of view.  The severity, frequency, mortality, and morbidity of the target disease are measured.  Then the same analysis is done with the vaccine.  The vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing and or reducing the severity of the disease and reducing its morbidity and mortality is measured.  Then the frequency and severity of the vaccine’s side effects along with the morbidity, mortality, and cost of the vaccine are measured.

When all is said and done, the questions to be answered are:

1. Will the health of the public be improved significantly if the vaccine is given to the target population?
2. Will the health of the individual people be statistically improved by receiving the vaccine?

Note the term “statistically improved”.  An individual may be not helped, may be injured, or even killed by the vaccine.  But, if statistically speaking, he is more likely to be injured or killed if he doesn’t get the vaccine and the vaccine is cost-effective, it will be recommended.  There are no guarantees for the individual in this scenario.  There is no risk-free choice.  You either get or you do not get the vaccine.  The goal is the reduction/minimization of risk.

How Does This Relate to Guns?

People arguing against gun control have stated that they need guns for their protection. They want to improve their safety.  They say, for example, that in the case of the school mass shootings, the teachers should have guns to protect the students.  So, what results is an arms race.  Both criminals and law-abiding citizens compete to out-arm the other in a never-ending vicious cycle.  This situation is not limited to school shootings, but gun violence in general.  Does this arms race leave us safer, less likely to be the victims of gun violence?

A comparison of the United States with other countries around the world consistently demonstrates the likelihood of being a victim of gun violence is proportional the prevalence of guns within the society.

Adverse Side Effects of Gun Control

Clearly, there are problems with gun control. A few examples are:

• If someone attacks you with a gun and you don’t have one on you how can you defend yourself?
• If you follow the law, but the criminals don’t, then they have an access advantage to guns.
• How do you control guns without violating our constitutional right to bear arms?

Comorbidities

Injuries and deaths from gun violence are not only related to the prevalence of guns in our society.  Mental illness, crime, suicide, among other things also play a role.  That other factors are involved in no way negates the role of gun prevalence and the usefulness of its reduction in arriving at a solution to the problem.

Hygiene and sanitation may prevent the spread of infectious diseases. Medications may be available in some cases to treat them.  This, however, doesn’t make immunization any less useful.

Final Analysis 

There is no risk/problem free choice here.  However, if you analyze the problem like you would when coming up with vaccine recommendations, you would choose the option which resulted in the best statistical health of the individual and the population as a whole.  Done that way, you would work to reduce the number of guns in our society.  In spite of the numerous problems involved in doing so, everyone would be statistically safer.