I normally hate this argument, but in this case it works. Cars are extremely deadly, yet people deemed fit (low standards here) to operate them have a right to them.
Few things… First, cars are not weapons. Second, cars are heavily regulated. Third, I’d gladly not have a car if I didn’t need one.
Cars are heavily regulated, but pretty much anyone can drive them, no matter how incompetent. Why not just heavily regulate guns? Is necessity what determines whether a dangerous thing should be banned? Should people in cities with effective public transportation have to face a committee to deem whether or not they need a car enough to be legally allowed to own one?