Can You Be Pro-guns and Pro-seat Belt Regulation?

I do not understand how one can be for more relaxed gun control laws while simultaneously being supportive of seat belt enforcement laws. Both appear preventative to me. Discuss.

Beliefs, in most cases, aren't mutually exclusive.

Sure. Because not all guns are used for suicides or sprees. Some are used for hunting game, and others to shoot at a range. Range shooting is a hobby, believe it or not.

Well, for a start, guns can be used safely and legitimately. Driving without a seatbelt is taking an unnecessary risk.

So why must someone who doesn't want to wear a seat belt have to?

^ Owning a loaded gun can be a risk for children and certain people.

edited 19th Jul '11 3:50:23 PM by snailbait

Easily. The idea with Gun Control laws has less to do with ensuring responsible gun owndership and more to do with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. For reasons that in most cases are statistically unlikely or misaimed anyhow.

Seatbelts, on the other hand, prevent you from learning how easily the human skull can fly through windshield glass.

^^ Which is why most people who are sensible about gun safety know you don't keep a gun with a loaded mag or chambered round lying around the house.

edited 19th Jul '11 3:52:11 PM by MarkVonLewis

In that kind of situation, it's parents' responsibility to store the gun somewhere where the kids won't get it. A locked safe, maybe.

And never loaded. Store the ammunition somewhere else.

edited 19th Jul '11 3:52:46 PM by BobbyG

Both gun ownership and opeating a car require you to be responsible. Even if you're following all the gun ownership regulations (as in, you're legally owning it) you can still do stupid stuff like cleaning it when loaded, not checking it properly when hainding it to someone else, not double-checking it when it's handed to you, keeping your finger on the trigger and waving it around, and other sorts of stupidity.

You can own a car, just drive it responsibly and follow the applicable laws, and we'll get along fine.

You can own a gun, just use it responsibly and follow the applicable laws, and we'll get along fine.

So for me, there is no disconnect.

Heck, I'll even toss this in for free: You can drink alcohol, just drink responsibly and follow the applicable laws, and wel'll get along fine.

edited 19th Jul '11 3:54:09 PM by pvtnum11

Bobby's got it. Any parent who leaves a loaded gun in reach of a child has more problems than just gun ownership. Namely gross negligence and stupidity.

Pvt's also got it. Safety for both guns and cars come down to responsibility and not being an idiot.

edited 19th Jul '11 3:53:46 PM by MarkVonLewis

So I can drive around without a seatbelt if I am responsible?

Also very much with pvtum on this one. Responsibility is key. Driving without a seatbelt falls under irresponsible behaviour.

And I think the comparison is entirely fair. A car is a pretty lethal machine. You're more likely to die on the road than get shot.

^ That's an oxymoron.

edited 19th Jul '11 3:57:52 PM by BobbyG

Not necessarily. One can abide by traffic rules and such. But in this hypothetical case, a passenger doesn't have their seat belt on. Isn't that a choice that they were willing to make?

edited 19th Jul '11 4:00:19 PM by snailbait

Sure, you can be responsible by abiding traffic laws but you wouldn't be acting responsible for your own health because accidents can occur and be the complete fault of someone else.

...only if the law doesn't mention anything about pasengers requiring seatbelts.

Like idiots who ride on the back of a pickup truck on the freeway. When they wreck, they are so boned tenderized.

But that's a risk they're willing to take. That's my point. Similarly, a person purchasing a gun will have to consider the risks it has to their loved ones.

Well, yes, but the expectation is that they do their best to avert those risks.

Y'know, without giving up the utility/convenience/enjoyment of owning a gun/car altogether.

edited 19th Jul '11 4:06:00 PM by BobbyG

^^ And if they are in any way responsible the risks to their family will lead them to not be stupid about gun safety.

edited 19th Jul '11 4:06:08 PM by MarkVonLewis

Exactly. Personally, I think people riding in the back of a truck are somewhat foolhardy, but it's permissable if you're over 16, where I live.

But just becasue it's permissable, doesn't make it the brightest thing to do. But, you work with what you got. Hawaii has a big truck fetish, I've found.

@Bobby: That's the expectation, yes. I'm all for seat belt enforcement regulations. But some people don't care. I don't see how you can tell one group of people "that's not safe" while telling another "that's not safe, but I'm sure you'll be fine."

edited 19th Jul '11 4:08:50 PM by snailbait

I think the fundamental flaw in the argument here is assuming that seatbelts (not cars, but seatbelts) are equivalent to guns from a philosophy-on-regulation standpoint.

• A gun has actual, legitimate uses outside of killing people and/or perpetrating crime. It is often used for these purposes, and there are as many responsible people with one as there are those who are not responsible.

• A seatbelt exists purely for the safety of the user. There is no reason to not wear one. Medical treatment for accidents can cause far-reaching effects on society as a whole, as medical costs go up. It also will cause collateral emotional damage to loved ones. Therefore, it is the obligation of the government to see them used and used consistently.

Basically, gun ownership is Gray-and-Gray Morality or Gray-and-Black Morality, while seatbelt wearing is Black-and-White Morality. There are good arguments for allowing people to own guns. There are no good arguments for not forcing them to wear seatbelts.

Simple, it's called life experience. I've fired a gun before, I know how to clean several models and operate them effectively. There's no mystique, no terror from them for me. In my eyes they are no different than tools. That's one of the many reasons why I don't support gun control laws. (I do support gun control by way of using both hands when firing.)

I support seatbelt laws because I've had a time or two where seatbelts literally caused me to emerge in better condition than the car did. Once was due to an ice storm over the previous night (I smacked a guard rail at 45 mph, the ice on the road was 3 inches thick and I had to slow down via brakes due to somebody in front of me, lost it from there otherwise I would have been fine.) the other was when I hit a Ford Explorer in downtown Pueblo traffic in a Mazda Protege (that had NO airbags!).

It doesn't help that wearing seatbelts habitually is normal for me, after all when you are 4 years old and somebody slams into your mama's car in the exact same side and seat you were riding in before that happened (the accident in question was my ma's car was parked and we were out of it) you tend to learn to buckle up right then and there.

I think it's silly to not wear a seat belt too. The only justification I can think they can argue is that it infringes their rights. According to other people, taking away guns would infringe on their rights.

Your anecdote is not universal.

edited 19th Jul '11 4:23:15 PM by snailbait

"It infringes my rights" is not, in itself, a good argument. You need to actually back it up with an explanation.

What rights, anyway? It's against the law. Are laws against theft infringing anybody's rights?

Note that there are numerous arguments for gun ownership, some of which have been referenced in this thread.

edited 19th Jul '11 4:23:52 PM by BobbyG

"Being an idiot" is not a right promised in the Constitution. As much as some people in the US make it seem otherwise, however. Therefore, they have no leg to stand on. Amusingly enough, a case can be made (however far-fetched, in my opinion) that the Founding Fathers would have at least had a basic idea of how much guns were going to advance and They Just Didn't Care. However, cars, obviously, did not exist at the time and they couldn't have known about that. So any argument that there is a "right" in the constitution being infringed on is BS. Unless we've added an amendment without me noticing...

edited 19th Jul '11 4:26:14 PM by USAF713