The point of a thing matters less than the use of the thing. We've seen truck attacks in Europe kill more people (in a single event) than the largest mass shootings in the US.
Is that an indictment against cars? The whole of your life depends upon the good will of others.
If someone is trying to rob/assault/rape/kill you, when you otherwise are unable to defend yourself against a superior-strength assailant, you may find a gun much more useful than a car. Hard to drive when you've been beaten to death.
Are you indicating everyone should be able to own a weapon then? Despite being incapacitated in some way, which may lead to injury of themself or others.
The baseline is that, as the Constitution enumerates, armament of self for defense of self, family, and state is a natural right.
The well-established & well-understood caveat is that any right may be curtailed for a particular individual IF adjudicated, in court, for good and established specific cause.
The problem being addressed by the law in question is that veterans are being denied that right by faceless bureaucrats routinely checking "mentally incapacitated" checkbox for decades-old never-recurring cases of mild depression or other irrelevant trivialities. If you're going to deny someone the right of self-defense, at least do it in court with articulable & relevant cause.
I would argue that the point of a gun is the have the ability to kill, not to necessarily do so.
It may seem a subtle difference, but it's important. Another way I've heard this said: "My pistol serves not to impose my will upon others through force but to ensure that others may not do so unopposed."
Is that an indictment against cars? The whole of your life depends upon the good will of others.