Both have reasonable use cases. Both are fun to tinker with. Both are the main ways people kill other people. And you shouldn't need to use either daily in a civilized society.
That's not even talking about the rest of the problems mass car ownership creates, from climate change to destroying neighborhoods to the health crisis sitting instead of walking creates.
This is either some next-level elitism or a false argument. Does the recluse have no place in society? What about the logger, or the Tractor operator? What about the surgeon who is on call, do you want them to bike to the hospital at 2 AM? I sure as hell don't.
If your argument is that no individual should have to own a car, we already live in that America. If your argument is that no one should have to own in a car, get real.
> we already live in that America.
Perhaps you should visit the old town centres in Europe, or the country villages. You can see what a society built around not using cars looks like.
What I meant when I said "tractor drivers getting to work" is people like my friend who grades and compacts pads for new homes. He drives a 4x4 pickup down a dirt road sometimes for 10+ miles to get to his tractor so he can start working. How does mass transit work for new construction?
Building is a reasonable use case for cars while protecting yourself from polar bears is a reasonable use case for guns [0].
I don't understand why you, and a large number of other people, are being willfully obtuse about this. 10+ miles on dirt roads to get to a tractor is not someone who lives in civilization, it's someone out in the wilderness.
[0] https://www.cntraveler.com/story/alaskan-town-kaktovik-polar...
"Yes guns are dangerous, but they're meant to be. They still don't kill as many people as cars do!"
"Yes cars are dangerous, but they're fulfilling a real need. Transportation is more valuable than violence!"