You don't need your gun to get you around.

I agree.

Though, I've never had to use my seatbelt regardless of how many times I've 'clicked it', so to speak, but that's a separate analogy.

You don't need your gun to get you around, banning cars has a much different impact than banning guns.

Banning guns in the US won't happen for a long time. Serious gears would have to turn for that to happen.

So, given "bearing arms" is a constitutional right, people seeking to restrict this right legislate for regulation/mandating specific features in the name of safety.

The same mentality of basing feature/function restrictions on "not used in everyday life/too dangerous" is not applied to cars/motorcycles.

"In 2007, speeding was a contributing factor in 31 percent of all fatal crashes, and 13,040 lives were lost in speeding-related crashes." NHTSA .

If we truly could not stand one more preventable death, we would govern the maximum speed of personal transport, but we don't. We would limit WHP, ban superchargers, limit drive-wheel width... all of the effort that has been rigorously applied to guns in the name of 'saving the people' has not been applied to personal transport, something which has no legal protection.

I can do 130mph in a car that is an absolute hazard to drive at that speed. With a Class-C license I am apparently able to operate anything from a 7ft Smart ForTwo, a 12,500lb-24 foot long RV, to a 1200hp GTR (which can outpace a 'race car' from 1980). Joe down the street can sell me his old dirtbike without being required to take it to a dealer to see if I am licensed to operate a motorcycle. Even with a license, I could buy a bike far beyond my skill range and kill myself driving home from the dealership.

TL;DR: This is the dissonance "pro-gun" people see in the "its for safety" rhetoric. If it were truly about saving lives, other damaging/excessive/extraneous machines and products which are not constitutionally protected would logically be first on the chopping block, no?