Very true, which is why a careful, thoughtful consideration of the issues, and a balancing of the costs and benefits is required. Guns are, after all, just as dangerous as cars to the general public, and without as many of the social benefits that cars have.
As Scalia said: the right is subject to reasonable regulation.
Whoa, there, skippy.
My car does not make my home or person safer.
My gun does.
My car pollutes the air.
Except for very limited occasions, my gun does not.
My car uses public resources, even takes up space on them.
My gun does not.
My gun is no danger to anyone who is not a danger to me, my family, or others who cannot defend themselves.
My car, well, while it has not harmed anyone (ever), may not be so fortunate in the long run.
My gun has the very real potential to be of benefit to society, in the interruption of a crime, apprehension of a criminal, and the defense of me, my family, my neighborhood and neighbors, and in the extreme, my country.
My car, at best would be a bit of a roadblock.
My gun has fed my family (and others).
My car, thankfully, has not--at least not in the sense that it has directly been the device to put meat on the table.
My gun has been used to stop rabid animals from injuring others.
My car has not.
I think you grossly underestimate the social benefit of my guns.
