I have been pondering an analogy. Suppose your knowledge of cars came primarily from "The Fast and the Furious" film franchise, and your political stance on cars relied on their depiction in cinema to inform your perspective about driving and drivers in general. You may have never even seen a car yourself, but you are sure you understand the issue fully.

<center>![car-30984_640.png](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmS5DADjZWN6Z6hGB5iqAX2uJbD93fWJ7vTYABdvXF44n5/car-30984_640.png)
[Image credit](https://pixabay.com/vectors/car-sports-car-red-sport-auto-30984/)</center>

What if every headline about any auto fatality led to you calling for "common-sense car control reform." When anyone dares discuss how cars actually work, what regulations already exist, and how the vast majority of people drive, you accused them of being a shill for the AAA or not caring about human suffering. If people question the need for any existing laws or cite any studies that contradict your preconceptions, you shouted, "The blood of the innocent is on your hands! We have to do something, and you don't even care!" What if your arguments about what kinds of cars people should be allowed to own were presented as a middle-ground compromise, and "no one needs more than a 1.6L 4-cylinder FWD sedan anyway!"

That is how gun control advocates act on social media, and how the yellow journalists of today pretend to be "fair and balanced."