And this exactly the same for gun control lunacy.

2l555g.jpg [image not found] Sounds like progressive logic

We need to raise taxes on alcohol to pay for all the people injured by drunks.

We require licensing. We require drivers to carry insurance. We require testing to show that drivers can use the damn things safely. And responsible car owners jump through all the hoops they need to because we know that whining about regulations is a waste of energy when drunk driving is obviously a serious problem. And as a result of all efforts to enforce drunk driving regulations, drunk driving fatalities have declined significantly in decades since the 1970's.

What exactly are you getting at?

Now imagine if every ding dong time a drunk crashed into someone, it was a national sensation and all the victims' family and friends were paraded on TV 24/7 and then the press and politicians were screeching non-stop that we need sensible driver regulation and that we need to make it harder to buy booze, ban alcohol, ban cars, etc etc.

It's like the same shit, just they do it with guns.

Um.... we do that. There are towns all across America where you get like five minutes a week to buy your beer and the reason for their laws was because a kid got hit by a drunk driver and died in the 80's.

You're talking like this is ridiculous fantasy. Are you out of touch with what goes on in America or something?

My point is that adding additional regulations to sober drivers does not fix the problem with drunk driving accidents. The analogy is the same for the idea of imposing more regulations to law abiding gun owners in an effort to control terrorists, criminals, etc.

People must also follow ALL the rules of the road ie speeding, texting, reckless, distracted, obey signage, all these rules and regs to follow or face monetary or driving ban punishments, all evolving over the years to keep people safer.

But it did, though! Drunk driving fatalities are a fraction of what they were forty years ago.

They are down because the penalties for drunk driving are more severe today than they were 40 years ago. The offender is the one targeted by the current laws, and do not impose any additional restrictions on those who are law abiding drivers. But in the gun control discussions, the offender is not the one targeted for more severed penalties. The restrictions seem to apply to only those who are law abiding gun owners.

"do not impose any additional restrictions on those who are law abiding drivers"

What planet are you living on? I have to prove that I'm not a drunk driver CONSTANTLY.

You used to have 3 strikes for drunk driving

Indeed. Now it can ruin your life on the first infraction.

And good, frankly.

I actually helped catch a drunk driver. Care to hear the story?

Of course! Please tell.

July 31st 2015 it was my dad's birthday and we where at the beach in port Huron with a few of my siblings. We're driving home on interstate 94 and are getting close to our exit. Soon we notice the car in front of us is swerving and nearly hitting the median several times. We weren't sure if he was texting or not but we could tell he was drunk driving so we call the police. However when you're driving an calling the police you pass thru several jurisdictions and changed operators? So he gets off a few miles later and we follow him onto a side street where he side swipes a parked car. We knock on the door of the house to inform them and I think the guy knew the driver. The driver was on a different street and dazed with a police officer arriving. So we left

Well thank God nobody was hurt. Hopefully, the driver learned his lesson or if he didn't, he's still got people like you on his case.

I was a passenger in the car chasing him and I did correct my sister about the cars name