@SerenityMoon I've never once made the argument that guns kill people and that less guns would kill less people. You are now putting words in my mouth to frame my argument in a certain light. I've made my argument very clear, multiple times.
It's strange that you would purposely twist "Less guns would lead to less gun related deaths" into a completely different sentence after I've said it so many times. I feel like this is happening because you aren't fully reading what I'm saying, and only looking at certain points before responding.
And I've already explained how the car argument is ridiculous but I'll do it again. It's unfortunate that car related deaths occur, but cars aren't made with the intention that one day it will be used to inflict bodily harm. They are made with the intention that it will be used to travel. Humans live in a time where we have the luxury of vehicular travel. So it's sad that people die in incidents involving cars, but the extremely small fraction of times that cars are used to purposely inflict death are so rare that its negligible.
Guns on the other hand are created with the intention that they will one day be used to inflict bodily harm. It is their sole use. A gun is a human luxury thats entire function is hurt another living creature. A car is human luxury thats entire function is to assist in traveling. There is a fundamental difference between a car and a gun. Comparing gun related deaths and car related deaths is a textbook example of comparing apples to oranges. Here I'll try summing up why this is a ridiculous argument as simply as possible.
Human A: "Gee I wish I should get from here over to there faster" *this is why cars were created*
Human B: "Gee I wish I should hurt that thing over there faster" *this is why guns were created*
Humans having the luxury of traveling faster and humans having the luxury of hurting things faster are two different things. And if you start including deaths from car accidents into a debate about gun control laws, then you can't ever really a discussion about gun control laws. That's why its ridiculous. Humans die in construction accidents, so we shouldn't build stuff. Humans die from bee stings, don't go outside. Human's die of heart attacks, no one should eat fast food. You could have used any of those previous arguments in place of your car argument. I'm also not sure if you realize this, but bringing up car related deaths in a gun control debate is actually admitting defeat because you are basically making the following argument: "I can't argue against any of your actual points so I'll just start bringing up the fact that people die in other ways all the time".
You can't make this argument in a gun control debate: "since people die in this way as well, lets just ban that too", because there is an almost never ending of number of ways a human can die and essentially you are saying just ban everything then if we're going to ban guns. It's a more nuanced version of the classic child's argument of taking things to absolute extremes to prove their point, "oh you want to enact strict gun control laws because of the reasons you just laid out for me? well we might as well just ban everything then". There isn't an actual argument in there, it's entirely baseless. The part where it says we might as well just ban everything then can replaced with thousands of different arguments, and none of them wouldn't mean anything. It's honestly like when a child uses the argument "Yeah you're sending me to my room? I'll just stay there forever".
en.m.wikipedia.org
![6cb1b8f0321e37e25f8edb4171fd13bb20568d7eb5ea1468a8058a673a8bcb12_1.webp]](https://img.ifunny.co/images/6cb1b8f0321e37e25f8edb4171fd13bb20568d7eb5ea1468a8058a673a8bcb12_1.webp])
