A few writups here are trying to show that guns, knives and cars are still safe if used responsibly, and then drawing the conclusion that the difference between the items is irrelevent, and hinges completely on the responsability of the user.

This is pure BS.

We are a tool using species. We either have a need and develop a tool to help solve the need, or we develop a tool and find a need for it to solve. A car is a tool which was developed expressly for the purpose of transporting people from one place to another. A knife was developed to solve a wide range of needs, from self protection, to food preparation, to aid in building a shelter, etc. A gun was created to kill human beings, and continues to be, for hand guns, its sole intent. If you were to take a statistical study and correlate the number of guns in a given region and the number of gun deaths in that same region, you would find it would be significantly higher than a similar study on cars/car death and knives/knife death (You might be able to do planes/plane death, but that is another comparison which is shady at best). You could even take the numbers out which represent people using these items improperly (so the study only reflects those who know how to use, are trained in and (if required) licensed) and the results would be substantially similar.

I'm not saying "Let's outlaw/license/restricts guns/gun types/gun usage" (That's another argument entirely). What I am saying is that the arguments presented on this writup to refute the original writeup are fundamentally flawed (even though the original is flawed as well, that doesn't mean you should use flawed arguments to further your propaganda).

In fact, don't use comparisons at all. If guns are good then you should be able to say so, and make a complete argument that stands on its own without having to reach for the "X, Y and Z are also dangerous if used improperly" crutch which too many fanaticists teeter on top of.