Read on Twitter
The whole "vehicles have more uses are are more regulated to prevent death that guns are" is rendered void by comparing a privilege to a right.
Even so, the argument is myopic because it assumed the only use of a gun is to kill. That in itself is false. Guns are used for recreation, competitive sports, hunting, varmint control, and defense. All the while both objects can be for deadly violence.
Of course those uses are dismissed with "get a different hobby", "find a different sport", "grocery stores", "you don't live on farm", or "criminals obviously have greater needs that you do" arguments.
Using that same logic, we could argue that vehicles ownership is unnecessary too and dismiss them with "public transportation", "ride sharing", "remote workforce", and "you live in a city" arguments.
From that perspective, I guess we could compare the two from a law abiding use, unintentional injury, and criminal use rates ratios. I'm willing to bet that vehicular injury and criminal use dwarfs gun related injury and criminal use in sheer volume and ratio.
If we are being intellectually honest, we could then discuss the efficacy of regulation versus education on unintentional injury rates. Another bet I'd place is that voluntary education is far more effective than mandatory education and regulation on that accord.
Unfortunately, I find that most folks aren't willing to engage in meaningful and honest discussion about unintentional injury and violent crime reduction. Instead they would rather focus on one upping each other on whether or not ownership of a particular object should be allowed
At least, that my take on it. I also remain open to meaningful discussion on the topic which includes focusing on a common outcome without dismissing the other's legitimate concerns and rights.
