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

They are both methods of protection. A seat belt is a passive form of protection from other people with cars, a gun is an active form of protection from other people with.. Well, any weapon, to be honest.

I'm neutral on seatbelts. I'd be fine without them, and I'm fine with them.

Also, please don't cite the Brady Campaign. They are a bunch of dickheads. They are essentially the anti-gun version of the NRA, equalling them in stubborness and deception.

Because the question is whether two philosophical positions are mutually exclusive or not. Therefore, motivation is a significant, if not deciding, factor. Trying to take motivation out of philosophy is like trying to take water out of Kool-Aid.

By the way, I know it's off-topic, but it was bugging me: snail, who in the hell was your last avatar?

I am now known as Flyboy.

A seatbelt is like a gun safety. They should always, always, be in the proper position to insure something horrifically bad doesnt happen.

When a car is in motion, you should have a seatbelt on. When you don't intend that very second to fire a gun, the safety should be in the proper position to make sure little Timmy doesnt accidentally shoot his own leg off if he somehow gets ahold of your gun. Not to mention probably have it in a secure location Timmy cant reach.

edited 20th Jul '11 12:02:40 AM by Midgetsnowman

I believe it's Utena Tenjou from Revolutionary Girl Utena.

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

Right... I thought it was Asuka, but it didn't look right.

Anyhow, on-topic, yeah, I pretty much agree with that. Guns and cars are roughly equivalent, as is gun safety to seatbelts. I think the faultiness of the question comes from it using Square Peg Round Trope, or in this case, equivalency...

I am now known as Flyboy.

So if I try and give my take on the issue...

A direct comparative factor, a "seatbelt for guns," so to speak, would be some mechanism attached to the gun that would somehow lower injuries.

But the concept behind a car seatbelt is that it takes an active experience, and makes it safer to participate in.

The concept of allowing firearms for sport to begin with is that anyone using them or storing them knows enough about them to never put others in risky situations.

Conceptually, the idea is that regulation of firearms ensures the people who are using them know how use them without putting anyone at risk; the mechanical track record supposedly indicates that the people who put others at risk while using a firearm either don’t understand how to safely associate with them, or intend to use it in a way so as to harm others.

With an automobile, the statistics suggest that everyone driving an automobile has an inherent risk of being in an unavoidable accident, regardless of driving skill or knowledge of the road, given bad conditions. While said conditions are unusual, they aren't freakishly unlikely. Since so many people are constantly driving, seatbelts are enforced to ensure that when the inevitable does happen, they are better prepared for it.

Conceptually, mind you, the idea is that a seatbelt is a modification that makes the entire experience better for everyone. Basically, it is an enhancement upon the original design that is an absolute necessity to better the ends of whatever the original designers intended.

But a firearm (a conceptual one, if you like) that is properly taken care of should only misfire or otherwise put anyone in the vicinity at risk when it is not being handled properly; thus, the solution to effective safety lies less in attaching 'seatbelts,' and more in simply ensuring that only people who actually know how to safely use a gun, handle a gun, store a gun, etc ever get to own one.

...

Still, that is just a conceptual argument. It's the direction most people in the topic seem to be coming from, but it's not perfectly reflective of reality, nonetheless.

If we were to have a more precise argument over exactly how automobile design, gun design, and the statistics of the accidents and injuries of both reflect upon their designs, and where the obligations of regulation rest because of that, well...

...this entire argument would need to become significantly more technical and thoroughly researched, unless we wanted to just sling appeals to logic back and forth for the rest of the topic while we grope around through google searches for valid information.

Keeping guns for self-defense is legitimate. Using them to murder defenseless animals is not.

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

Hunting is still a legitimate hobby (in the US, anyhow; it appears that nobody has any weapons to go hunting with in Europe, though that may not be true), and animal rights are most certainly not mainstream, so that argument is not entirely credible at the moment for modern gun politics.

Murder is also the wrong word (if the person is hunting properly, anyhow) and "defenseless" is pushing it. Unless one hunts with an automatic weapon, there are quite a few animals in the usual hunting areas that could definitely harm, maim, and/or kill someone...

edited 20th Jul '11 12:41:08 AM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

Personally I believe that Hunting is a more legitimate use of guns than self defence. And I can verify that hunting is allowed at least in Sweden provided you have a license and are allowed to hunt on specific placed with a limit on how much can be shot so that a healthy amount of animals remain-

In the quiet of the night, the Neocount of Merentha mused: How long does evolution take, among the damned?

Animals can kill you just as quickly as you can kill them.

Depends on the kind of animal there. I have a great deal more easy killing aphids than they do killing me.

Yeah, it's called a safety.

^

You, sir, are a true warrior.

*snrk*

+1

All your safe space are belong to Trump

Unless you're hunting something like rabbits or quail, most hunted game like Deer, elk, moose, bear, etc, are VERY capable of killing your ass.

Like a lady I knew in one of my science classes put it about her hunter son. He only brings 2-3 arrows with him to go hunt bears via archery. Why? Because if the first arrow doesnt kill the bear, he's fucked. Few things are as kill-happy as a pissed off bear with an arrow stuck in him.

edited 20th Jul '11 5:57:35 AM by Midgetsnowman

I just meant as a comparison Barkey, don't think of me as a hero.

@JB: Son, you're getting ready for the bug war; kill em all!

"Similarly, a person purchasing a gun will have to consider the risks it has to their loved ones." - snailbait

NOT owning a gun can have risks to one's loved ones too. If a criminal with a gun breaks into your home, a knife might not cut it for scaring him or her off.

See, this is why people ought to be careful about assuming certain pairs of opinions to be contradictory; you never know what key point one is leaving out.

Because owning a gun is only bad sometimes, and aside from that is often good, while failing to wear a seatbelt is always bad all of the time. It's like comparing a ban on asbestos in school cafeterias to a ban on peanut butter in school cafeterias.

AGH! I hate these idiots so much, riding around with people (usually their kids) and pets in the back. I saw the same thing in California occasionally, but it's completely out of control here, there should just be a federal law: No more living things in a vehicle unsecured, ever

Yow, I wasn't aware they still made 'em like that!

I think that was the case. Remember they were fresh from throwing off the yoke of occupation largely through a guerilla rabble of amateur terrorists. Further, it's pretty easy to read various passages in the constitution as an outright ban on a standing military.

One other point is that (while I harshly disapprove of it, and feel all enforceable measures should be put in place to curb it) smoking has a rationale: “I like the nicotene/taste/whatever.” There is no such argument for failing to wear a seatbelt aside from an utterly insignificant amount of time and discomfort.

I can produce an obviously biased source as well, but the point stands that a statistical correlation between violence and guns is utter farce. Michael Moore himself noted that some ineffable failing in American culture is more likely to blame than guns.

Think of them like trees. Gratuitous slaughter is bad (like clearcutting,) but legitimate uses at reasonable levels (like sustainable forestry,) population control (like controlled burns,) and extermination (like removing invasive species) are good.

Eric,

I did not realize the source I used was biased, so try to be more lenient.

I'm not fully convinced, but I can see where I am wrong. I request this thread to be locked.

"Without a fairy, you're not even a real man!" ~ Mido from Ocarina of Time

Seatbelts are anti Reckless Car Usage.

Most gun enthusiasts are anti Reckless Gun Usage.

I see no contradictions.

For what it's worth, it was a good debate snail, thanks for challenging me.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.