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

Midget: Yeah, that basically is my core viewpoint.

Why should frequency matter, though? Just because someone is more likely to encounter an irresponsible driver on a day-to-day basis doesn't mean that's a good justification for forcing people to wear seat belts.

I decided to do more research on this topic. In 2008, 12,925 people in accidents where someone was not wearing a seat belt died. On the other hand, 31,224 people died from gun violence. Apparently, 100,000 people are shot per year regardless of whether they live or die.

The website proceeds to say: "An estimated 41% of gun-related homicides and 94% of gun-related suicides would not occur under the same circumstances had no guns been present." This is not to mention how 80% of gun related deaths among 23 wealthy nations happen in the United States.

Source 1

Source 2

So it seems to me that, statistically, you are more likely to die from an irresponsible gun owner than not wearing a seat belt.

edited 19th Jul '11 5:48:25 PM by snailbait

Try this:

Both a gun and a car are dangerous devices.

A seat belt is a secondary device, which makes using a certain dangerous device (a car) for its intended purpose (transportation) significantly safer. Thus, a law is created requiring the use of this device, because using it will save lives, but some people are stupid and not easily convinced by lesser arguments.

A gun, on the other hand, is simply a dangerous device. If there were some secondary device that, say, significantly reduced the chance of accidentally shooting yourself or someone else while using the gun for its intended purpose (target shooting, self defense, hunting, etc), I think a law mandating the use of said device would be a very good idea.

Preventing someone from having a gun at all will ensure that they never accidentally shoot someone, but it will also prevent them from using the gun for whatever purpose. Whether or not the uses a gun can be put to are worthwhile enough to justify the risk is a complicated decision. For cars, despite the danger, we continue using them, because rapid transportation is very, very useful; we also work hard to make them as safe as possible while we use them. Are guns that useful? I don't know. I haven't used a gun much other than a little target shooting, but I've never really been in any other situation where I would want to use a gun.

edited 19th Jul '11 5:52:27 PM by Shinziril

^^ I wouldn't use the Brady campaign website to talk about guns. They're quite inaccurate or just plain distorting on a great many things.

They're activists, why should accuracy matter to them since accurate honest talking about guns defeats their message?

edited 19th Jul '11 5:49:33 PM by MajorTom

Do you have evidence that what you are saying is true?

Well, statistically, I've been in car accidents twice that caused injury, and two more times that didn't result in injuries (fender-benders), plus witnessing two other accidents (one, the nose lady, another, car spun out due to tie-rod failure and the loss of control that resulted).

I've seen only one gun accident (some idiot pulled the trigger on a training exercise, but it was just blanks thankfully and aimed at nothing), and I was in the military.

So, that's a what - 6:1 ratio?

Yes, those aren't fatalities, but they're near-misses. You have to count those, too, as they're datapoints.

edited 19th Jul '11 5:57:00 PM by pvtnum11

a Better analogy is a gun safety to a seatbelt. Both are features you should have enabled at all times barring damned good reason.

edited 19th Jul '11 5:57:38 PM by Midgetsnowman

Again, I am not sure what anecdotal data is going to do.

edited 19th Jul '11 5:58:42 PM by snailbait

(can't comprehend why anecdotal evidence is dismissed so readily)

Here's non-anecdotal evidence on car accident rates, from here:

• National Car Accident Statistics (2009)
• There were more than 5.5 million car accidents in the United States. Nearly 31,000 were fatal, and more than 2 million people were injured.
• The majority of fatal crashes involved only one vehicle (61 percent).
• Nearly half of all fatal crashes occurred on roads with posted speed limits of 55 mph or higher.
• The deadliest month for car crashes was August. More than 2,864 fatal crashes occurred in 2009.
• Most crashes happened between 5 and 5:59 p.m. on weekdays, and between 2 and 2:59 a.m. on weekends.
• Motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death for children and teenagers.
• At any given moment, 812,000 vehicles were being driven by someone using a handheld cell phone in the U.S.
• An average of four children ages 14 and under were killed every day in auto accidents. Nearly 500 were injured daily.
• While statistics continue to improve, 32 percent of fatal accidents involved alcohol-impaired drivers.
• About 31 percent of fatalities were caused by speeding (10,591).

(because it's not proof of anything)

Umm, what's that have to do with seat belts?

I keep getting statistics from 10,000 to 30,000 regarding deaths from gun violence, so it's hard for me to confirm who is factual. Either way, the data shows that people die almost or more frequently than non seat belt wearers.

edited 19th Jul '11 6:11:46 PM by snailbait

There were more than 5.5 million car accidents in the United States

Imagine if more people didn't wear seatbelts, and the effect that would have on the injury/death rate.

(but I WAS THER- oh, nevermind.)

edited 19th Jul '11 6:10:06 PM by pvtnum11

You're going to get mad at me, but how is showing me that statistic supposed to prove anything? "Hypothetically, if it happened then check out all those deaths!"

Yeah, well I'm sure someone in England is thinking the same thing. I can't find gun violence statistics that well in the U.K., but it seems to be 42 deaths per year. I could also argue "look how many deaths we're preventing!"

(You created a ratio from your own anecdotal evidence. Why does that mean anything to me?)

edited 19th Jul '11 6:17:16 PM by snailbait

Not mad, just.... stymied. Oh well, welcome to the Internt, I guess.

Data from this source paints a different picture on gun accident rate.

What I'm attempting to do, unsucessfully, iunno, is that if those 5-something million car accidents - if none of those has seatbelts worn, I can pretty much guranteee you that the injury rate and death rate would have been far higher. No clue how much higher, though. Some of those accidents might ahve been low speeds, or single car bumping into stuff in the parking lot or whatever.

Now I'm going to be like Tom and say "that's from the NRA! Of course it's going to be biased in there favor."

And besides, your hypothetical situation wouldn't happen because people are still going to use seatbelts no matter what. Even if my state said it's no longer illegal, I'll remain wearing one every time I go out.

I don't really understand what the argument here is. Seatbelts make cars safer; that is, as far as I know, an undisputed fact. Some people don't like to wear them... because they're stupid. Some people like to use guns. Some people think some (or all) types of guns should be regulated.

You see some kind of connection/mutual exclusivity to being pro-seatbelt laws and anti-gun regulation. We've established, very thoroughly, that they are sufficiently different to not be mutually exclusive, unless we wish to delve into pointless semantics. Why are we still discussing this?

Because the Internet. We debate stuff here.

Seatbelts were optional equipment before they were mandated items, yes. The fatality rate on motor vehicles has been on a steady decline for a long time, even before seatbelts came along. As mentioned previously, this has a lot to do with design issues in the car itself. I was hoping to find data on death rates from 1968 and 1970 (before and after the mandated installment), but no luck.

And yeah, I'd like some independent data on the link I grabbed too. It seems at odds with what you posted earlier, and I have reason to believe both may be skewing numbers. CDC, maybe?

My argument is that you tell one group of people that what they're doing is unsafe so never do it. You tell another that what they're doing is unsafe, but it's okay because it's their right. The motivations as to why they do it doesn't matter. It's because they want to.

I don't see how things like insurance or safety of people matter when, statistically, gun violence and non seat belt wearers have similar statistics.

I agree. That is why I'm trying to find a credible second opinion. It seems like the best I can come up with is around 11,000. Although, some sites say 30,000. So who knows.

edited 19th Jul '11 6:32:10 PM by snailbait

I did find CDC numbers.

• Motor vehicle traffic deaths
• Number of deaths: 42, 031
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.9

• All firearm deaths
• Number of deaths:31,224
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.4

As mentioned before, both cars and firearms have some strict regulation working to keep the death rates as low as they are.

Clearly, we should ban all motor vehicles and firearms to ge the death rate to zero in both categories.

Not to mention cars are more common than guns, so guns have more concentrated amounts of death.

Uggh. Statistics wars!

But if you want to live in a world where you have complete autonomy, you're probably going to have to abandon the civilized world. Build a house? You need an inspection. You need to follow code. Want to cut people's hair? You need a license! Want to use the internet? Then you have to use thousands of protocols and codes!

What is the world coming to?

Slippery slope and emotional appeal, try again. People only want as much regulations as they think would benefit them.

edited 19th Jul '11 6:45:43 PM by Ramus

I'd imagine that the CDC would be about as unbiased a source for information as you could get, especially since it reported on both rates we're talking about.

I probably should have potholed Sincerity Mode for that post. I honestly didn't know what the subject was for continued debate. But, my point still, stands, we basically answered that. You may not be satisfied with the answer, but that is the answer. Guns have legitimate uses past killing people and/or committing crimes. Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't, and even if you don't want to you'll thank us when you crash and don't become an artillery shell out your windshield.

I personally don't see hypocrisy. I can see why the question was brought up, but I think there is sufficient debate open with guns—and sufficient lack of debate open with the seatbelts—that they are not mutually exclusive positions.

The one issue I have with the statistics is that they do not display how many of those deaths were caused by a lack of seatbelts. Now, I have gathered from a different source that 63% of people die in accidents because they are not wearing a seat belt. That comes out to about 26,479.53. We'll round that up to 26,480. Of course, I don't endorse this as a true statistic.

As a reminder, my point is neither to refute (or abjure, as some might say :P) nor support either side of the gun debate.

As I said, why should motivation be a factor?

edited 19th Jul '11 7:02:26 PM by snailbait