I usually avoid these absurd comparisons because, well, they're absurd. They're like comparing apples with oranges, as the saying goes. However, in an attempt to comply with the wishes of the commenters who continually make these comparisons (especially you Bob), and who never miss an opportunity to accuse me of avoiding answering (that's you Weer'd), I've decided to give it a go.
So let's talk about cars.
Let's imagine there's a serious movement afoot to ban them. I'm talking about total ban. Those spearheading the movement are nothing less than fanatical in their untiring attempts to win support. Everyone knows how dangerous cars are. They pollute the environment; they're stolen from their lawful owners and used in crimes. All too often they're involved in deadly accidents on the highway, about which everyone understands the cars are not at fault, but as the banners love to say, "No cars, no accidents". Then, you've got the problem of law abiding car owners driving drunk or otherwise intoxicated. Again, this should not be blamed on the car, but since people are people, and even though the vast majority of car owners are responsible, you've always got that certain percentage who gives a bad name to the rest. Ban 'em all, says the Movement.
Fighting tooth and nail against the Movement is a more vocal minority who insist banning cars is not acceptable. These car enthusiasts feel eliminating cars would not address the problem. People would still use horses and bicycles for transportation, so you would still have accidents. They frequently refer to 19th century news articles in which horse-drawn carriages came thundering down upon an intersection only to crash into another vehicle or trample pedestrians. What about all the safety and convenience cars provide? We need them to protect our families, they cry. They will hear nothing of punishing the majority of lawful car owners for the sins of a small minority, even if those sins result in untold violence and bloodshed. Above all, the car lovers shout, it is their Constitutional right to possess cars. The Founding Fathers certainly would have specified so had cars existed at the time. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can hardly be achieved without cars, they say.
The interminable debate rages on, car apologists, despite their smaller numbers, are maintaining a clear lead.
One voice from among the Movement to Ban Cars suggests that since the actual existence of cars hangs in the balance, and since these opposing philosophies represent all-or-nothing positions, it is reasonable to say that as long as car enthusiasts continue winning the battle, they must assume responsibility for the problems resulting from their victory. Since cooperating with the Movement would so completely eradicate the problems (no one really believes in that nonsense about horse-drawn carriages causing serious accidents or the fact that defensive car use outweighs offensive), then car lovers are responsible, if not directly, certainly indirectly for those problems.
Does that make my position no guns clearer?