He could have but it's not an argument, it's a fallacy that really only acts to end an argument. At this point it's statistically insignificant as total gun deaths and auto deaths are almost the same. If you say 'well then, cars should be illegal because more people die from them' it's not a statement that inspires further discussion. Unless we want to spend of bunch of time discussing how cars and guns are the same... or actually, how they are not the same since they are not the same.

The problem with these bumper sticker or Photoshop quips is they're built on faulty logic. Once you incorporate Lossy Logic into a debate further debate on these assumptions become meaningless. It's the same thing as 'more people die from clubs and sticks than rifles'. It starts to become a caricature of a debate, not a real debate. Which is the whole point of using these types of fallacies: they are meant to end debate and distract from the original premise.

So Premise A person (guns = cars) can spout off reasons why cars and guns are the same and Challenger A (not same) can go back and forth... and not talk about the bats*** insanity of 9 yr olds firing automatic weapons.

You first:
Guns and cars are the same because ______