You're gliding over motive, which does your stance no favors.

Compare and contrast: To the knowledgeable user of the handgun, the handgun is perfectly safe. In order to be injured while using a gun you must (A) point the gun at yourself (B) fail to follow basic procedures, like tucking your eye right up against a rifle scope or put the weapon to the wrong shoulder and hit yourself in the face with the cartridge or (C) have the weapon taken from you in conflict and cease to be the user. On the other hand, GM sold 800,000 vehicles that could kill you if your keychain was too heavy.

Trucks are definitely getting more dangerous to pedestrians and other drivers. That said, the immediate, proximate harm from automobiles - setting aside externalities like pollution - is from misuse, not use. The harm from firearms comes directly from their intended use. They are designed to do what they do. AR-15s are the chosen weapon of mass shooters because they are exceptionally good at mass shootings. The US Army instituted the .223/5.56N for the explicit purpose of bypassing Geneva Convention rules on flechettes; the thinking was that a weapon that produced mass casualty was of greater battlefield utility than a weapon that produced lethality because injuries are more of a logistics drain than fatalities.

You're right: suburbs were very much colonized based on racism. You don't need a Berkeley article for that, Zinn will do. But there's a chicken/egg problem here: White flight relied on the already-prevalent automobile, and it was largely into extant communities unreachable by mass transit. The automobile aided and abetted white flight, it didn't cause it. For every Levittown you point to I'll show you a hundred San Fernando Valleys.

And it matters because "you drive a car, therefore you are racist" is not a compelling argument. You will not convince anyone that their need for four wheels is based on their hatred of other races. In general, American distaste for public transit is utilitarian: "I don't use it so why should I pay for it or be inconvenienced by it." There are definitely malignant strains of cars equal freedom but for anyone of low or moderate income, the lack of a car is rightfully seen as an impediment to success.

Cars are a byproduct of the American experiment. Many nefarious actors have profited from them, and many nefarious actors have made the situation worse. America would benefit from less cars, presuming viable solutions were available; I think you'll find that where a viable solution is available, people use cars less. I'm hopeful that this trend will continue with GenZ's wholesale abandonment of cars. They certainly aren't getting cheaper, and they certainly aren't getting more essential. And really, what's a bus but a big, cheap rideshare?

But no matter how you slice it, they aren't guns. Cars serve a (too) necessary function in American society and their harms are externalized. Guns serve a MUCH less necessary function in American society and their harms are a direct consequence of their intended function.