content: The difference between cars and guns is that cars are created with a primary purpose of transport, socializing, commerce, etc. Of safety moving people and things from point A to point B in a spread out society. You have to either have a clear accident, or intentionally misuse them to overcome all the efforts at safety and end up causing an injury or fatality. No part of a vehicle is designed to kill intentionally. Quite the opposite. Because of the aforementioned overwhelming primary purpose of safely moving people and/or goods around in our society, we decide that the risk is an acceptable one balanced out by the overwhelming positive aspects of every day use. Guns, on the other hand, are created to kill. Easily, quickly, repeatedly, accurately, at a distance. This is essentially their only purpose and any other purpose is only to emulate or practice this purpose. Pretending the two have anything in common is disingenuous or just poorly reasoned. Now of course we can still look at that same kind of risk assessment and decide whether or not the associated body count is worth the price for perceived personal freedom, a particular type of personal self defense, etc... but we have to be honest up front that the things being weighed are very different. Finally, banning guns outright is generally not the issue for most people, but rather simply more effective reasonable regulation. But even if we were speaking of banning outright, even that would be a fundamentally different issue than banning cars (for reasons touched on above). We're not even in the same zip code of discussion when it comes to any sort of intellectually honest assessment of the issue of banning these two fundamentally different things. (And I do understand that some people realize that we're only talking about regulation, but believe that this would result in a slippery slope to eventual bans, but that is different than talking about bans right off the bat. I have more respect for people who rationally and honestly voice their concern about the slippery slope rather than creating the up front straw man of "ban guns!" any time reasonable regulation is brought up. Just a side note for clarification. I respect the slippery slope argument. I don't respect people who act like any mention of regulation is no different than calling for banning guns outright.)