Gun Control question for liberals?

[bigrebnc1775]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually, confiscating over 300 million guns is not practical

So the emphasis has to be on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies and those with depression

This means strict reporting rules, registration, licensing and background checks

Also means banning high capacity magazines and military grade weapons

Police can have as many guns as they wish

Strict reporting rules?
Are you advocating squealing on your neighbors?

"911, my neighbor, with a Trump sign in his yard, looked a little sad today you need to come get his guns."

I am advocating a national data base that contains all felons, wife beaters, crazies and manic depressives

I also advocate licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms and recording of all sales

We do it for cars, we can do it for guns

How do wife beaters, crazies, and manic depressives (whatever those are), get into the database?

When you say all sales I assume you are including private sales and private transfers.

So you are just going to ignore "Shall not be infringed."

YES.....ALL PRIVATE SALES

Even to your own family

how does that stop crime?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It is as simple as this

If you want a rifle or shotgun for hunting or target practice, buy what you want

If you want a handgun, take appropriate training, show you are responsible, get a license and registration

If you want an assault rifle with a massive magazine......same thing

/——/ NO such thing as an assault weapon

Converted military weapon
Large capacity magazine

Wrong
Restricting standard capacity magazines do nothing to restrict crime. MOST CRIMES WITH A GUN IS WITH A HANDGUN and the last mass shooting was with a revolver.

 

[2aguy]

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Sorry... Won't fly... You lost me with "on all purchases"...

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

Criminals do not go into a firearms store and legally buy a firearm.

They get them from private owners

That is why we need to register all guns

Gun registration doesn't do anything....all it does is lead to the next step, gun confiscation and banning.....it doesn't prevent gun crime, or mass shootings, and it doesn't help solve crime........

Canada tried to register 15 million long guns...and failed..

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.

 

[2aguy]

Actually, confiscating over 300 million guns is not practical

So the emphasis has to be on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies and those with depression

This means strict reporting rules, registration, licensing and background checks

Also means banning high capacity magazines and military grade weapons

Police can have as many guns as they wish

Strict reporting rules?
Are you advocating squealing on your neighbors?

"911, my neighbor, with a Trump sign in his yard, looked a little sad today you need to come get his guns."

I am advocating a national data base that contains all felons, wife beaters, crazies and manic depressives

I also advocate licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms and recording of all sales

We do it for cars, we can do it for guns

How do wife beaters, crazies, and manic depressives (whatever those are), get into the database?

When you say all sales I assume you are including private sales and private transfers.

So you are just going to ignore "Shall not be infringed."

YES.....ALL PRIVATE SALES

Even to your own family

how does that stop crime?

he/she/it, knows it doesn't.....troll like behavior is all you get from Rightwinger...

 

[BULLDOG]

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

So, your idea of effective having zero effect?

You can make all gun transfers comply with FFL and it still won't stop illegal sales. That's what we keep tell you. All you are doing is creating more red tape and stopping no gun violence.


.

Credible link?

 

[2aguy]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Licenses are unConstitutional, since owning and carrying a gun is a Right, unlike driving. Training requirements....like Literacy tests, will be used to keep people from exercising a Right....this is what they do in Europe to keep normal people from even trying to own a gun, the training requirements and fees are so high, only the rich and politically connected have access to guns.

What does a background check do? Could you explain that, since criminals do not go through background checks and mass public shooters pass them easily......

Please point out where it says you can't require a competency test and licensing? Seems to me that would fall into line with the "well regulated" part of your militia

The same place where Literacy tests created by democrats to keep blacks from voting was declared unConstitutional..... you could try the 14th Amendment, section 1.

 

[2aguy]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Licenses are unConstitutional, since owning and carrying a gun is a Right, unlike driving. Training requirements....like Literacy tests, will be used to keep people from exercising a Right....this is what they do in Europe to keep normal people from even trying to own a gun, the training requirements and fees are so high, only the rich and politically connected have access to guns.

What does a background check do? Could you explain that, since criminals do not go through background checks and mass public shooters pass them easily......

Please point out where it says you can't require a competency test and licensing? Seems to me that would fall into line with the "well regulated" part of your militia

While I would be willing to accept competency testing and licensing even, it would have to be state of local.
The Constitution is clear there is no federal jurisdiction at all over any weapons.

Any test for the exercise of a Right is unConstitutional...as is any fee for the exercise of a Right.....

 

[Cellblock2429]

It is as simple as this

If you want a rifle or shotgun for hunting or target practice, buy what you want

If you want a handgun, take appropriate training, show you are responsible, get a license and registration

If you want an assault rifle with a massive magazine......same thing

/——/ NO such thing as an assault weapon

Converted military weapon
Large capacity magazine

/—-/ Nope, it’s a made up word to demonize guns. There is no manufacturer or government classification for assault weapons. Pure lib BS.

 

[BULLDOG]

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

So, your idea of effective having zero effect?

You can make all gun transfers comply with FFL and it still won't stop illegal sales. That's what we keep tell you. All you are doing is creating more red tape and stopping no gun violence.


.

Do you have any credible data showing universal checks will have no effect? Quoting the NRA or Alex Jones isn't credible data.

You want them. You prove it.

Criminals do not obey laws and do not use weapons that can lead back to them, a.k.a. illegal weapons, that normal people do not buy. It is pointless to talk about this because you people refuse to understand how it works.

Straw purchases lead back to the last FFL purchase.

You just want to add more steps in the process to stop LEGAL purchases. Quit lying.

.

You want me to prove your point? Yep, you're nuts,

 

[2aguy]

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

So, your idea of effective having zero effect?

You can make all gun transfers comply with FFL and it still won't stop illegal sales. That's what we keep tell you. All you are doing is creating more red tape and stopping no gun violence.


.

Do you have any credible data showing universal checks will have no effect? Quoting the NRA or Alex Jones isn't credible data.

Duke University and University of Chicago, you dumb ass.....


Yes.....criminals use friends and family to buy their guns for them, since those friends and family can pass any background check.....

Then, prosecutors who catch the friends and family do not prosecute, because the grandmothers, baby mommas and sisters of the criminals tell them they were threatened if they refused to buy the gun........

Study Finds That Chicago Criminals Get Guns From Friends, Family

A survey conducted by researchers from Duke University and the University of Chicago found that Chicago criminals obtained their firearms almost exclusively from friends and family.

The survey, funded by the Joyce Foundation and set to be published in the October edition of Preventive Medicine, consisted of interviews with 99 inmates at Chicago’s Cook County Jail who had illegally possessed a gun within six months of their incarceration. It found that most criminals only acquired guns from people they knew and trusted.

"It is rare for offenders to buy from licensed dealers, and also rare for them to steal their guns," the study says. "Rather, the predominant sources of guns to offenders are family, acquaintances, fellow gang members—which is to say, members of their social network."

The study found that due to fears of encountering undercover police officers attempting sting operations, a large majority of the criminals surveyed would only make illegal gun purchases from people they knew.

"In discussing the underground gun market in their neighborhoods, most respondents emphasized the importance of connections—prior relationships that could create sufficient trust to reassure the seller that the transaction would not create an unacceptable legal risk," the survey says. "A majority of the primary guns (40 of the 48 for which we have detailed information on the source) were obtained from family, fellow gang members, or other social connections; the fraction is still higher for secondary guns."

"Only 2 of the 70 primary guns (3%) and no secondary guns were reported as purchased directly from a gun store."

 

[Pogo]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Licenses are unConstitutional, since owning and carrying a gun is a Right, unlike driving. Training requirements....like Literacy tests, will be used to keep people from exercising a Right....this is what they do in Europe to keep normal people from even trying to own a gun, the training requirements and fees are so high, only the rich and politically connected have access to guns.

What does a background check do? Could you explain that, since criminals do not go through background checks and mass public shooters pass them easily......

Please point out where it says you can't require a competency test and licensing? Seems to me that would fall into line with the "well regulated" part of your militia

While I would be willing to accept competency testing and licensing even, it would have to be state of local.
The Constitution is clear there is no federal jurisdiction at all over any weapons.

Any test for the exercise of a Right is unConstitutional...as is any fee for the exercise of a Right.....

So slander and libel laws are unConstitutional?

I thought you claimed to be a "scholar". Did you mean "wanker"?

 

[BULLDOG]

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

So, your idea of effective having zero effect?

You can make all gun transfers comply with FFL and it still won't stop illegal sales. That's what we keep tell you. All you are doing is creating more red tape and stopping no gun violence.


.

Do you have any credible data showing universal checks will have no effect? Quoting the NRA or Alex Jones isn't credible data.

black ground checks have done nothing to stop people from being killed with a gun. or have murders stopped happening?

And DWI laws haven't stopped people from getting drunk and causing wrecks. Did you have a point, dumb ass?

So, you are finally agreeing that laws do not prevent crime.

We're finally getting somewhere.

Praise Allah.

.

Laws do prevent crime. Only a childish fool would expect them to stop all crime,

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, it does fail as a strawman fallacy.

The fallacy manifests when a lie is contrived about the opponent’s position on an issue, in this case the lie that ‘liberals’ oppose the private ownership of firearms – which is clearly untrue.

Then the lie (strawman) is attacked by the individual who created the lie claiming ‘victory.’

When an arguer resorts to sophistry such as a strawman fallacy he has at that point lost the ‘argument.’

Your post also fails as a strawman fallacy – a lie.

Since Heller/McDonald ‘liberals’ have made no argument in the courts that the Second Amendment doesn’t codify an individual right to possess a firearm; in fact, ‘liberals’ support Heller/McDonald as settled, accepted case law as to the meaning of the Second Amendment, and the firearm regulatory measures they advocate for are perfectly consistent with that case law.

The OP is entitled to no apology.

/—-/ You gun grabbers don’t fool us. Liberals Now Openly Admit: ‘We Must Destroy the Second Amendment’
View attachment 268306

Yyyyyyyeeeeaaahhhhh ummmmmmm...... you just posted a link to Alex John Brinkley Jones making the same bullshit term conflation that the OP did.

You DO realize that makes our point all over again, do you not?

/——-/,Oh you’d Grab our guns if you thought you’d succeed No One Wants to Ban or Confiscate Guns huh? These Quotes from Anti Gun Leaders Say Otherwise

Since you already made this personal Squimpy, you go ahead and show the class anywhere I've posted anything remotely about wanting to "grab guns" in the six and a half years I've been here. Ever. Anywhere.

Go ahead. The whole world's waiting.

Come on Zippo, go ******* find it. It was the very issue I joined to jump into. There's plenty of material on the topic with my name on it. Go fetch.


******* DUMBASS.

/——/ Sorry, I never set up a log of gun grabber posts admitting they want to grab our guns.

No need to apologize – it’s not your fault you can’t create a list of posts advocating for ‘confiscation’ of guns because no such posts exist.

But you can keep lying about it if you wish.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, confiscating over 300 million guns is not practical

So the emphasis has to be on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies and those with depression

This means strict reporting rules, registration, licensing and background checks

Also means banning high capacity magazines and military grade weapons

Police can have as many guns as they wish

Strict reporting rules?
Are you advocating squealing on your neighbors?

"911, my neighbor, with a Trump sign in his yard, looked a little sad today you need to come get his guns."

I am advocating a national data base that contains all felons, wife beaters, crazies and manic depressives

I also advocate licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms and recording of all sales

We do it for cars, we can do it for guns

How do wife beaters, crazies, and manic depressives (whatever those are), get into the database?

When you say all sales I assume you are including private sales and private transfers.

So you are just going to ignore "Shall not be infringed."

YES.....ALL PRIVATE SALES

Even to your own family

how does that stop crime?

Cuts off access to guns

I am a criminal, but my buddy gets me guns

 

[rightwinger]

It is as simple as this

If you want a rifle or shotgun for hunting or target practice, buy what you want

If you want a handgun, take appropriate training, show you are responsible, get a license and registration

If you want an assault rifle with a massive magazine......same thing

/——/ NO such thing as an assault weapon

Converted military weapon
Large capacity magazine

/—-/ Nope, it’s a made up word to demonize guns. There is no manufacturer or government classification for assault weapons. Pure lib BS.

Easy to do

 

[2aguy]

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

So, your idea of effective having zero effect?

You can make all gun transfers comply with FFL and it still won't stop illegal sales. That's what we keep tell you. All you are doing is creating more red tape and stopping no gun violence.


.

Do you have any credible data showing universal checks will have no effect? Quoting the NRA or Alex Jones isn't credible data.

And more.....

How dangerous people get their guns in America



The importance of the informal (undocumented) market in supplying criminals is suggested by the results of inmate surveys and data gleaned from guns confiscated by the police. A national survey of inmates of state prisons found that just 10 percent of youthful (age 18-40) male respondents who admitted to having a gun at the time of their arrest had obtained it from a gun store. The other 90 percent obtained them through a variety of off-the-book means: for example, as gifts or sharing arrangements with fellow gang members.

Similarly, an ongoing study of how Chicago gang members get their guns has found that only a trivial percentage obtained them by direct purchase from a store. To the extent that gun dealers are implicated in supplying dangerous people, it is more so by accommodating straw purchasers and traffickers than in selling directly to customers they know to be disqualified.

The supply chain of guns to crime
While criminals typically do not buy their guns at a store, all but a tiny fraction of those in circulation in the United States are first sold at retail by a gun dealer – including the guns that eventually end up in the hands of criminals.

That first retail sale was most likely legal, in that the clerk followed federal and state requirements for documentation, a background check and record-keeping. While there are scofflaw dealers who sometimes make under-the-counter deals, that is by no means the norm.

If a gun ends up in criminal use, it is usually after several more transactions. The average age of guns taken from Chicago gangs is over 11 years.

All in the family
So how do gang members, violent criminals, underage youths and other dangerous people get their guns?

A consistent answer emerges from the inmate surveys and from ethnographic studies. Whether guns that end up being used in crime are purchased, swapped, borrowed, shared or stolen, the most likely source is someone known to the offender, an acquaintance or family member.

For example, Syed Rizwan Farook – one of the shooters in San Bernardino – relied on a friend to get several of the rifles and pistols he used because Farook doubted that he could pass a background check. That a friend and neighbor was the source is quite typical, despite the unique circumstances otherwise.

Also important are "street" sources, such as gang members and drug dealers, which may also entail a prior relationship. Thus, social networks play an important role in facilitating transactions, and an individual (such as a gang member) who tends to hang out with people who have guns will find it relatively easy to obtain one.

Currently it is rare for those who provide guns to offenders to face any legal consequences, and changing that situation will require additional resources to penetrate the social networks of gun offenders.

 

[2aguy]

So you don't know the purpose of the second amendment. And you have no qualitative experience in the use of deadly force?
No history is not your's to bastardize it

You still using that fake AVI?

That's me stop whining
How did that background check work in the mass shooting at the church in texas?

No one law will stop all related crimes. Only a child would think they could. There are laws against murder, rape, and theft, should those laws be eliminated because they don't stop every murder, rape, or theft?

Laws against murder and rape do decrease murder and rape because of the large punishment.
But gun laws have LESS punishment than what the criminal intends to violate with the weapon, so can not possibly work at all.
In which case the ONLY possible intent of gun laws is to intimidate honest people.
And yes, making guns more difficult to get legally does greatly increase crime because it makes the illegal market more lucrative and enticing, just as the War on Drug and Prohibition greatly increased crime.
If you look at the graph of murders over the years, it is clear that Prohibition and the War on Drugs more than doubled the murder rates.
More gun laws only make the illegal gun market more lucrative and enticing, while greatly decreasing the credibility or respect for government.
A government that would implement gun control will be actively worked against by any responsible person who believes in a democratic republic. That is because with a democratic republic, gun control by government is essentially treason..

So in your opinion if we want gun control laws to work we need really serious, like death penalty punishment.

Opinion noted.

No...we simply need to stop the democrat judges, politicians and prosecutors from letting repeat, violent gun offenders out of jail on bond, over and over again, and reducing sentences on violent gun offenders....

We have all the laws we need, we just need to keep democrats from letting gun offenders out of jail.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

If I know my cousin, uncle, niece, nephew, best friend etc isn't a felon why do I need to pay for a background check?

Because people lie. Especially conservatives and criminals.

Except that since people lie, there is no way background checks can possibly prevent any crime.
Not only have all the mass shootings been from people who could legally buy weapons, but anyone can easily get someone else to make the purchase for them, or buy illegally from a drug dealer.
The ONLY thing background checks can do is to intimidate and harm honest people who want to be armed for valid reasons.
For example, a couple breaks up, the woman is threatened, but then is forced to wait a week before being allowed to get a weapon for defense.

And the biggest liars of all are government, like the Iraqi WMD Congress insisted existed.
So you would prefer to give the lairs total control over our lives?
I thought this was supposed to be a democratic republic, where we were supposed to be the only source of all authority?

Well, since lying can not be stopped, we might as well stop asking people to swear to tell the truth in court, shouldn't we?

We do not expect criminals to not lie in court.
Have you have heard of a person convicted of a crime, and then been also charged with perjury for not admitting it?
That would be illegal for the prosecution to do that.
It would be double jeopardy, if nothing else, and a violation of the 5th amendment.

The purpose of having people swear to tell the truth in court is if they are not being prosecuted, so we need to have some means of coercing the truth out of them.

We should prosecute people who commit crimes with guns, not try to intimidate those who just want to buy one.

Absolutely. Murderers, violent rapists, people that shoot/beat someone badly during a robbery, and pedos should all be publicly hanged within 48 hours of being convicted. This would free up so many resources it's mind-boggling.

 

[BULLDOG]

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

I have never heard of any place ever mandating safety inspections on any car, ever.
All there has ever been in any of the dozen states I have lived in, is emissions test, and even that is only in large cities. Mandated car inspections likely are illegal.

Unplug the headlamp on one side of your car and drive around at night, that gives LE Probable Cause to stop your car and make sure it is safe. Also, the Coast Guard can arbitrarily board and examine if you vessel has proper safety equipment.

A violation that harms others, like a headlight, is not a safety inspection.
I have never had police or Coast Guard conduct a safety inspection, nor would I see any legal authorization, even though travel is not a right and could endanger others.
Unlike travel, weapons are from the right of defense, and there really can be no equivocation on that.

Yes, the freedom to travel is a constitutional right. Your flailing for some sort of point, any point, has caused your head to overheat, and it's misfiring again.

 

[BULLDOG]

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

So, your idea of effective having zero effect?

You can make all gun transfers comply with FFL and it still won't stop illegal sales. That's what we keep tell you. All you are doing is creating more red tape and stopping no gun violence.


.

Do you have any credible data showing universal checks will have no effect? Quoting the NRA or Alex Jones isn't credible data.

black ground checks have done nothing to stop people from being killed with a gun. or have murders stopped happening?

And DWI laws haven't stopped people from getting drunk and causing wrecks. Did you have a point, dumb ass?

You don't hear calls for more DUI laws . You don't hear a call for zero tolerance. I've yet to hear a call for more restrictive penalties for people who are caught DUI. Never have I heard a call to restrict a vehicle that has over 400 horse power being banned when the driver was drunk and killed someone. but it's always a gun.

Not really the same thing there Boo Boo.