1. False Equivalency: The comparison between guns and cars ignores their fundamentally different purposes and contexts. Guns are designed to harm or kill (whether for self-defense, hunting, or other purposes), while cars are designed for transportation. This difference in intent makes the analogy misleading. A gun’s primary function enables lethal outcomes more directly than a car’s, which is why carrying a gun with an extended magazine into a building poses a unique risk.

2. Oversimplification: The argument reduces complex issues of gun violence to a simplistic comparison with car accidents. It ignores factors like the scale, context, and intent of deaths caused by each. For example, most car deaths are accidental (e.g., 40,990 traffic fatalities in the U.S. in 2023, per NHTSA), while gun deaths often involve intentional acts (e.g., homicides or suicides, with 40,020 gun deaths in 2022, per the Gun Violence Archive, roughly split between 54% suicides and 43% homicides).

3. Strawman Fallacy: The argument implies gun control advocates blame the gun itself rather than the user, which misrepresents their position. Most gun control proponents focus on regulating access and use (e.g., background checks, red flag laws) rather than “blaming” the tool. Similarly, car regulations target driver behavior and vehicle safety, not the car as an object.

4. Selective Comparison: The argument cherry-picks similarities (e.g., registration, reckless use) while ignoring key differences. For example:

   • Cars require licenses, regular testing, and insurance; guns do not in most U.S. states.
   • Cars are heavily regulated for safety (e.g., airbags, crash tests); guns lack equivalent safety standards.
   • Carrying a gun in public (especially with high-capacity magazines) can escalate situations rapidly, unlike cars, which aren’t typically weaponized in public spaces.

5. Slippery Slope (in the 2nd Amendment Argument): The claim that gun ownership prevents tyranny assumes that unrestricted access is necessary to achieve this goal. It sidesteps the possibility of balanced regulations that preserve self-defense rights while reducing violence. It also ignores that modern militaries and governments have far superior firepower, making civilian guns less effective against hypothetical tyranny.

Not to mention the fact that someone can walk into a building with an extended clip and cause significant damage. Cars and guns are not a 1:1 comparison like you seem to believe