Which fallacy is exemplified in the following statement: Of course gun ownership should not be prohibited. You can kill someone with a hockey stick, but no one proposes to ban ownership of hockey sticks.

The argument rests on a comparison too weak to carry its conclusion.

It likens guns to hockey sticks merely because both can kill someone.

But guns and hockey sticks differ vastly in purpose, lethality and ease of causing death.

A single shared feature cannot make regulation of one match the other.

Reasoning from such a superficial resemblance is the fallacy of weak analogy.