They are not. If people who like silver cars had to drive white cars instead, life would go on and there would still be less accidents involving silver cars. That there would then be more accidents involving white cars might be a relevant factor the talking point glosses over, however.
Even food could in theory be replaced with IV nutrition. But there are countervailing advantages to actual food that aren't taken into consideration by the simplistic logic of food poisoning is bad, therefore ban food.
And we can't do without water, but we can, for example, require swimming pools to have fences, which would reduce the amount of drowning without prohibiting water at all.
But the point is that they aren't even examples. You can use that "logic" against literally anything, which makes it obviously flawed. If there were less puppies then less puppies would bite people. That doesn't mean we should ban puppies.
> Also, there isn't a National Silver Car Association that is influencing Congress to block research into silver car related deaths.
There also isn't a Campaign to End Silver Car Accidents trying to get Congress to fund research into silver car accidents that only produces the raw numbers without accounting for things like the independent trend for reduction in accident fatality rates over time when measuring the effects of a silver car ban, substitution effects, the fact that there are more silver cars than red cars when comparing the accident numbers, etc.
I understand your point though. I just think that gun regulation is a special case, since due to NRA influence "less guns = less gun deaths" is the only association we have to go on right now, and reducing deaths should be our primary goal.
That's the point. We have that number of vehicle fatalities. We don't ban cars, we improve safety. Air bags, concrete barriers on divided highways, etc.
There are a lot of things we could do to reduce the number of firearms fatalities that we aren't doing. Mandatory firearms safety classes in high schools would reduce the accident rate. The government actually prohibits normal citizens from buying body armor, even though people who know they're at high risk of being shot could otherwise buy it and cause them to be less dead. A huge proportion of the shootings in the US are drug and gang related, which means if we addressed those problems better there would be less shootings.
But it's politics. Their intent isn't to solve the problem, it's to whip people into a frenzy so they'll vote for one party or the other.
The question I pose is, what are the primary uses for guns and their viable alternatives, if any?
At which point you're having the entire gun debate. Are more criminals deterred when it's more likely their victims are armed? Does that also work at the national level, in that it's easier to raise an army when more of your population already knows how to shoot, so other nations are less likely to attack? Does it deter domestic tyrants who know they would have to fight an armed insurgency, or give citizens more confidence to make just demands of a corrupt state? What's the economic value of the jobs created by that industry? What's the community value of it as a sport? Are there ways to reduce the harms without prohibiting anything?
If you want the answer it's necessary to have the debate, not pretend there is no debate to be had.