Reducing drivers licence fees, yet proposing to increase firearm licence fees?

It is impossible not to see a pattern of sorts emerging from the news reports of proposals to
reduce fees for driving motor vehicles (which contribute directly more than 9,000 injuries and
deaths annually), and to increase fees for firearm licence holding (from which casualty numbers
are less than 500 annually, mostly from intentional self-harming).

This pattern is however riddled with anomalies: with more than 4 million holding licences to
operate any form of motor vehicle on a public road, there are only about 240,000 people licensed
for firearm possession and use. The former are a majority, the latter a minority.

Never mind the vastly higher number of casualties from motor vehicle misuse, if we relate these to the number of licensed users, we obtain a rate per 10,000 residents for motor vehicle misuse (causing a casualty or two) of more than 20 per 10,000, which when compared to the equivalent rate by firearm
licence holder, is almost identical, also at 20 per 10,000 residents.

Yet three-quarters of the firearm casualties are intentional, often by unwell people intent on self-destruction.
The questions must be asked, does putting fees up encourage licence holding?

And, if we knew the number of unlicensed firearm owners, what is their casualty rate?

Do you really feel safer?