gun owners? Should you kill the manufacturer of guns? To which I say first of all analogies never work. All right, you can't really compare a legal product to an illegal product. That's not really a good comparison. And secondly you can't compare something that kills X number of people to something that kills 10 times as many people. The size of it does matter. All right? The fentanyl from China is the size — in two years it'll kill more Americans than the Vietnam War killed of Americans. So you don't treat those the same. You don't treat a hangnail like a heart attack because they're both health problems, you know.

But here's my advice to you. So people have been coming after me with bad anal — oh let me just finish. The reason I think you should execute the mass murderers in China is because it sends a signal about the importance of the fentanyl. So I would like potential users of fentanyl in the United States to hear on a regular basis that the people who are producing it are being executed because producing this drug is such a bad thing, right? It's just for branding. I really don't care about — well let me say it a different way. It's not about stopping the supply because I recognize that's impossible. It's about branding China and branding the producers as mass murderers and not just people who are making a drug that other people are abusing. That's not the right branding.

But anyway, when people come after me with bad analogies, this is my new approach. I am A/B testing this and so far very good. So I'll say something like, "Let's kill those fentanyl dealers in China." And some of you will say, "Well what about killing, you know, would you also be in favor of killing people who make legal firearms?" Which of course is ridiculous. But instead of addressing that, which is my old approach, I used to just say, "Well your analogy is bad. Here's the reason why." I just say I don't answer to bad analogies. And sometimes I add, "And all analogies are bad."

So here's my recommendation to you. Watch how often this is useful. When somebody tries to argue with you, argue your point with an analogy. Do not address the analogy. Never. Don't say one word about the analogy. Just look at them and say, "Well I don't talk about bad analogies. But if you want to talk about my point and tell me why it wouldn't work, I would like to listen to that. But I don't address bad analogies because an analogy is literally a different situation. No two situations are alike and you shouldn't treat it like that. An analogy is like." And by the way, analogies as arguments are useless and a waste of time. Analogies for explaining a new concept, very useful.

So here's my useful explaining. When people are using analogies they're acting like an ingrown toenail and a heart attack might be similar in some way because they're both health problems, right? It doesn't help you knowing that heart attacks and hangnails are both health problems. Doesn't tell you that you should treat them the same way. So analogies are always misleading if they're used as an argument. But they can be good for making a point as I just used it. So the difference is if I just give my analogy to explain something I'm not asking you to respond to my analogy. I'm just explaining something. But if somebody says to you, "Oh well then would you be in favor of killing children?" and they're making some weird analogy, do not address the analogy. Just say you don't address bad analogies and all analogies are bad.

Let's talk about the postage situation. So many of you know that I was proposing that we put some kind of a tariff on Chinese packages and that we increase the postage and use that increase in revenue to buy more fentanyl-sniffing technology so that we could check their packages more efficiently. And again I know that there's no amount of checking packages anywhere that will really make a difference in the supply. But we should certainly do what we can to put the Chinese dea