Can anyone make a coherent argument that guns are LESS dangerous than cars? i doubt it...

[wickerwoman]

82. The question misses the point.

The US economy could not function without cars. We should be moving towards a more public transit oriented urban form where the number of private vehicles can be drastically reduced but until we get there, without cars people would not be able to get to work, parents would not be able to get their kids to school, the doctors, sports, the grocery store, the mall, etc, businesses would not be able to get their employees to meetings, courier services would not be able to deliver goods, documents etc.

So yes, probably cars kill more people than guns do. But cars also benefit society to a greater extent than they harm it. They are a necessary tool of the economy for the time being.

Guns are not a necessary tool. They are a hobby and quite obviously the benefits that they give society do not outweigh the harm that they cause.

Cars are also more tightly regulated than guns are. You can't drive until you're 16 but you can shoot a gun much younger than that. It's a crime to drive drunk but not to have a few beers on a hunting trip. You need a license that is regularly renewed to drive a car. You have to pass tests and have your vision checked. You have to wear a seatbelt at all times. You have to have insurance and get your car inspected. If it doesn't pass emissions and safety tests, your car can be ordered off the road. Your car has a unique ID so that if it is stolen it can be traced back to you.

So the issue has never been "which item racks up the highest death toll" or "let's ban anything that kills more than a certain number of people". The point is "what is the cost-benefit ratio for each of these two items and what can we do to lower the cost of each of them?"