"Gonna be the devils advocate here but you say you dont drive 150mph on public roads because its fun. However there are people who do. Should those people be screened for their dangerous and illegal behaviour or should we all be punished by removing cars?"
I used to. I don't now. I kinda grew up and realised that as casually as I disregarded the risks, I did not have the right to endanger other people. But anyway:
Extending any debate on gun control to 'cars are a lethal weapon'/'screwdrivers are a lethal weapon' is a classic diversionary counter-point, that steps away from the point of the argument. It's a little like being caught stealing cookies and then igniting a debate on an older sibling kissing the next door neighbour's daughter/brother/dog.
That aside... "Should those people be screened for their dangerous and illegal behaviour or should we all be punished by removing cars?"
Let's draw a few things in though and make a few loose comparisons:
Firstly, I am not trusted by the government or fellow road users and recognised to possess such a lethal bit of kit unless I am 17 years of age. And then I must pass a very comprehensive test to ensure that I'm not a liability and obtain a photo-license. Then I am required to take out insurance, and to have my vehicle inspected on a yearly basis. I am required to register my vehicle. I am required to have a little piece of paper with the car at all times which shows that it is legal for me to have it and be using it and that the authorities recognise my ownership. If I sell my vehicle then I am required to say who I sold it to. If my vehicle is stolen, then I am to report its loss promptly because otherwise I might be implicated in and held responsible for crimes that it might be used to commit.
I am not allowed to use my vehicle while drunk, high, on a mobile 'phone, or otherwise distracted.
There are many laws surrounding my safe use of a vehicle and the onus is on me to use it safely. If I use it in an unsafe manner - even if nobody is injured - then I will be punished.
If I become excessively old, suffer a eyesight impairment or epilepsy, or demonstrate that I cannot use my car safely, then I am required to take a re-test to prove that I am still capable of safely using it. If I break the rules surrounding my use of the vehicle or use it in a dangerous manner, I might forfeit my right to drive it.
And yes: If I am caught at 150mph, then I will temporarily lose my right to use a car.
These are the restrictions that we put on vehicle ownership. None of them are unreasonable. All of them are there to protect everyone else on the road. If I am not doing anything wrong, I have no cause for concern about these rules. The only times these rules become an issue is if I act irresponsibly, carelessly or criminally.
Isn't it kinda fecked up that there is far more regulation as regards vehicle ownership and use than firearms use in the US? Firearm legislation and registration should be AT LEAST as carefully and reasonably controlled as access to a vehicle.
I'm not sure how we'd screen for people who might speed excessively. There are two approaches that spring to mind. One is in place, the other is essentially persecuting a vast and disproportionate number of people for 'pre-crime':
1) When people commit minor infractions [low-level motoring offences] then in some way offer them a warning and punishment and have these punishments 'rack up' to eventual loss of license.
Well, we do that already via fixed penalty fines and points.
2) Prevent every male teenager who wants to impress girls from driving. Prevent everyone who participates in motor racing from driving on public roads.