11,127 gun deats a year, 4,000 non-seatbelt deaths a year.

Yet we have laws to make us wear seatbelts, and very little laws about gun control. I got my figures on gun related deaths in the USA from Mike Moores, Bowling for Columbine. I got the seat bealt stats from the link below. NOTE: The person writing the seat belt page said about 4000 people die for not wearing a seat belt every year. They go on to say that's about 20 people a day. But I estimate it at about 11 a day. I mean, 4000 deaths divided by 365 is 10.9. So 30 deaths a day from guns, 11 deaths a day for not wearing a seat belt. Makes you wonder doesn't it.


http://bg016.k12.sd.us/Persuasive_Writing/seat_belt.htm

if you don't want to wear a seatbelt it's your decision.
And before someone comes on here claiming that it results
in higher insurance rates, I should point out that
the insurance industry is incredibly profitable
So the insurance angle is spurious.

But for the sake of an honest comparison
there are somehting like 40,000 deaths from automobiles
in the US a year.

If you go through that windshield and die your widow collects a fat check and has enough to bury you and take a nice cruise to somewhere tropical - everyone is happy.

If you go through same windshield and live, but sustain massive head injury, as many, many folks do, your insurance will eventually pay out. When that happens, you wife will have depleted all your mutual resources and declare bankruptcy - that affects all of us.

Then, you will, in some manner, depending on the state your body is residing in, became a ward of the state. Your care may require 10's of thousands of dollars a month. I evaluate a program that has poor souls who are institutionalized that cost the State over 250k per year.

So, feel free to not wear your seatbelt, but don't delude yourself that it only costs the insurance companies and that it isn't anyone else's bidness if you don't.

Big nasty what if scenarious that claim the incredible cost on society is always the excuse used for curtailing liberties of every sort.
This same arguement can and has been used for placing dietary restrictions on people as well.

So feel free to delude yourself on the nature of freedom just don't pretend that there are good reasons to resist your type of justifications.

insurance companies and they make big profits so all is fine. You came back with the intrusion on liberty argument and ignored my statement that there was a cost to society as a whole, not just the insurance companies and their greedy shareholders.

Very nice strawman. The old, appeal to freedoms, screw the orignal topic argument.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it is not dishonest to do so, no matter how many times you feel a need to call me a liar.

I was explaining that the decision to not wear seatbelts may be yours, but it has great potential to affect all members of society - not just you and the insurance companies.

That is how in the hell I got there - it wasn't an interpretation, it was a response to a flawed and incomplete argument.

Do I have to post a 50 page thesis so as to make sure
I don't forget any particular aspects that you might
want to address?

Your actions remind me of the movie reviewer who says
he hates the movie because it wasn't the movie he was
hoping to see.

Maybe I should send you a private note asking if
my statements address everything you want them to
before I hit the post button.

But, it was an incomplete argument. I responded to it, trying to point out that the effect is greater than what you posted. Seems like a reasonable course of discussion in debate.

You are the one who chose to take it personal and to personally attack me.

I think your movie reviewer analogy is a good one - however, I believe it applies to your perspective of my replies, not my actual posts.

not the other way around. So the movie reviewer analogy holds regarding your posts.

As well, I sought to preempt a spurious arguement that has been used
here in the past to justify these types of laws. I was not
talking about the greater cost to society but you felt that
I did not address everything that you wanted to address.

Next time why don't you just make your own post that addresses these
issues?

on you posts. That is what really has happened here. You made an incomplete argument and rather than address any of that content every one of your posts since has been about context and not content.

This is a discussion board. When you state something, folks will challenge it if they disagree.

In this I disagreed with your statement, saying that you may think its your right not wear your seatbelt, but that you should be aware that it will cost society as a whole if there is an accident.

You are under no obligation to respond to my posts though you should expect challenges when on a discussion board. That said, you have no right to call me a liar, I have not made a single false statement.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

All these personal attacks, I don't understand it.

If you would read my actual posts you would see I was not misrepresenting what you said, I was saying that I didn't agree with your premise that it was an unjust law. I explained why by expanding on your cost to insurance companies.

Perhaps you thought I was honing in on the Insurance companies as your whole argument? I am referring to the larger picture, the issue of WHY the seat belt law is reasonable. Sorry if I didn't connect the dots for you on each post.

Everyone of my posts goes back to your statement that you don't agree with seatbelt laws. I simply said, Sorry, Gato I have to disagree with you - and then explained why I felt there was more to the seatbelt law to consider.

My motivation for continuing this? Well, you have called me a liar, you have stated I misrepresented you, told me I can't read or comprehend, and I am probably leaving out a personal attack or two. That would be my motivation for continuing this.

You're right about everything. :silly:

Are there any other subjects you would like
to argue over?

no, nothing else I feel a need to argue about. Actually, we seem to have parallel arguments. I wanted to have a discussion about seatbelt law and you seemed to want to fling poo and argue context of the argument rather than deal with the fact that your thesis is nothing more than self-serving, me first, fuck everyone else tired crap similar to the spew of the disciples of Ayn Rand all wrapped in the emotions of freedom.


Have a nice weekend.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that was my only post with any animosity whatsoever. The rest were honest attmepts to engage you in discussion.

Typical? of what? You are the one who resorted to personal attacks rather than admit the only argument you had was emotional rather than logical. Oh, should I have said arguEment?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

point out where I did. So far you haven't.

And, I never had to resort to name calling. So far that has been your main tact in what might have been a decent debate about seatbealt law.

As far as putting you in league with Rand, had you ever read Ayn Rand you would recognize that your argu(e)ment of self first is representative of her teachings - I thought you might be flattered.

Oh, and nice edit to your post that ended in typical when I replied to it. Calm down, I was only trying to discuss the issue with you. I never called you a misanthrope - I simply asked you to consider the argument that more are affected by your decision.

As for arguing about my ideas and your ideas? WTF? You have argued context for the last 15 (slight overstatement) posts and never have tried to defend your perspective.

Just because I think people ought to have a choice in seat belt usage
does not make me an Ayn Rand fan. Personally I can't stand her morals which is basically you can fuck over anybody if it will give you some kind of gain. Not being a supporter of mandated seat belt uasage is a long way from having that point of view.

I am not talking abou self first when I say that there needs to
be limits on government oversight of personal activities.
You are engaging in the same old smear by association that
goes on in gungeon on a daily basis.

At that I will leave you without anyone to argue with
since I now have to go somewhere and will be doing it
without my seat belt on. I know you feel that I am somehow fucking you over by not wearing a seatbelt but hey it's your problem.

Later

right as we actually get around to discussing the seatbelt issue. Ah, such is life.

buckle up and live. don't drive mad.

Actually, in reading Ayn Rand I never recall her spouting any belief that you could fuck over people to succeed. Her actual premise is integrity in all that you do, expect that from others as well - thereby all relying only on self.

That she ignores the higher moral quality of caring about people and attempting to help out your fellow man is unfortunate - personally, I would rather give a fuck about people.

Do me a favor please, respond to about 2000 vehicle accident in 21 years and then post your comments about seat belt laws. They might carry more weight.

"respond to about 2000 vehicle accident in 21 years"

I can't understand your grammer.

Have you ever had to respond to even 1 vehicle accident, and seen what happens when people are thrown from rollovers.
I can't understand your grammar "my ass". Hell you can't even spell it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that people from another country carried out, lost almost 800 American military, killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, bankrupted the Federal treasury for decades, and expanded government agencies, and have set in motion laws that will totally shred the national social safety net for millions and millions of Americans. Can you hear me now?!

I had no idea you post was in response to mine until I followed the links.

Tie it up for, would ya? I am missing your point. I won't try to speculate, as that seems to mightily offend some.

thanks

It's your decision but one that makes people take care of you the rest of your life.
Driving is not a right, constitutionally protected, so sensible regulations are not an infringement on your freedom.
Societal costs do matter as they do with many issues concerneing public safety which is why you also can't run free with drug resistant tuberculosis.

YOur arguments about the insurance industry being profitable are spurious..of course they are profitable..if their costs go up, they raise rates..but they do that regardless so I wouldn't make that argument anyway.

Having chaired many many events for the braininjured, I can tell you I have known hundreds of young men who were once as obstinate as you about this point...after traumatic brain injury, they changed their mind....whatever part of it was left.

BTW I'm not argueing against the use of seatbelts.
Hell, I wear a seatbelt half the time(like if I get on the highway)
but not all the time.

And yes, it is a choice that must be made in our society.
Are we going to allow people to make choices and take risks
or are we going to legislate every aspect of personal behavior
to eliminate any chance of anyone ever being hurt.

Should we outlaw bungy jumping? What about football?
There is really no end to your type of justfications.

And yes, it is a choice that must be made in our society.
Are we going to allow people to make choices and take risks
or are we going to legislate every aspect of personal behavior
to eliminate any chance of anyone ever being hurt.

That is fear mongering to the extreme. No one is proposing that every risk be legislated...only those where a compelling societal interest is present as there is in wearing a seatbelt.

Should we outlaw bungy jumping? What about football?
There is really no end to your type of justfications.

While I continue to state that driving is not a right, the number of people on the road make driving a compelling public interest...BTW...you shot your own argument out of the water...look at all the protective gear football players wear...and in bungee jumping, there are a number of protective measures required as well...and if they weren't followed, the operators could indeed be arrested for a variety of possible infractions.

Finally, there's nothing anecdotal about my experiences...they are backed up with numbers:

Traumatic Brain Injury Facts


Traumatic Brain Injury

The Problem

A blow or jolt to the head can result in a traumatic brain injury (TBI), which can disrupt the normal function of the brain. The severity of the injury may range from mild, a brief change in mental status or consciousness, to severe, an extended period of unconsciousness (30 minutes or more), prolonged amnesia after the injury, or a penetrating skull injury. Any TBI can result in short- and long-term disabilities (CDC unpublished).

Brain injuries are among the most likely types of injury to cause death or permanent disability.


Each year in the United States, an estimated

-1.5 million people sustain a TBI, which is 8 times the number of people diagnosed with breast cancer and 34 times the number of new cases of HIV/AID
-50,000 people die from a TBI, which accounts for one-third of all injury deaths; -80,000 to 90,000 people experience the onset of long-term or lifelong disability associated with a TBI.


Among children ages 0 to 14 years, traumatic brain injury results in an estimated
-3,000 deaths;
-29,000 hospitalizations;
-400,000 emergency department visits (Langlois 2001).


An estimated 300,000 sports-related brain injuries of mild to moderate severity occur in the United States each year (CDC 1997a).

Consequences


TBI may cause problems with:
-Cognition—concentration, memory, judgment, and mood;
-Movement abilities—strength, coordination, and balance;
-Sensation—tactile sensation and special senses such as vision;
-Emotion—instability and impulsivity (Thurman 1999).


At least 5.3 million Americans—2% of the U.S. population—currently live with disabilities resulting from TBI (Thurman 1999) (This estimate is based on the number of people hospitalized with TBI each year and does not include people seen in Emergency Departments who were not admitted to the hospital, those seen in private doctor's offices, and those who do not receive medical care.)


An estimated 15% of persons who sustain a mild brain injury continue to experience negative consequences one year after injury (Guerrero et al 2000).


TBI can cause seizure disorders such as epilepsy (Hauser 1993).


Repeated mild brain injuries occurring over an extended period of time (i.e., months, years) can result in cumulative neurological and cognitive deficits. Repeated mild brain injuries occurring within a short period of time (i.e., hours, days, or weeks) can be catastrophic or fatal (CDC 1997a).

Causes



The leading causes of TBI are vehicle crashes, firearm use, and falls (Thurman 1999).
Crashes involving motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and recreational vehicles are the primary causes of TBI (Thurman 2001).
Firearm use is the leading cause of death related to TBI (CDC 1999).
Firearms cause about 10% of all TBIs, but they account for 44% of TBI-related deaths (CDC 1999).
Nine out of 10 people with a firearm-related TBI die (CDC 1999)
Nearly two-thirds of firearm-related TBIs are classified as suicidal in intent (CDC 1999)

Cost

In the U.S. in 1995, direct and indirect costs of TBI totaled an estimated $56.3 billion (Thurman 2000).


Groups at Risk


Males are about twice as likely as females to sustain a TBI (CDC 1997b)
People ages 15 to 24 years and those over age 75 are the two age groups at highest risk for TBI (Thurman 1999).
African Americans have the highest death rate from TBI (Thurman 1999).

Prevention Strategies


Public health strategies to prevent future TBIs, reduce TBI-related disabilities, and improve outcomes of brain-injured persons include:


Increasing helmet use during recreation and sports activities (Thurman 1998).
Preventing falls among children and older adults by modifying the environment to reduce fall hazards and the impact of falls; and where possible, reducing medications with side effects that may contribute to falls (Thurman 2001).
Enhancing violence-prevention programs designed to decrease the occurrence of self-directed and interpersonal violence (Thurman 2001).
Improving use of child safety seats and seat belts and reducing alcohol- and drug-impaired driving (Thurman 2001).
Enhancing trauma care surveillance systems and clinical preventive services (Pollock 2001).
Improving data collection for TBI incidence (Thurman 1999).
Conducting follow-up studies of persons with TBI to assess outcomes and identify service needs (Thurman 2001)
Educating persons with TBI about steps to ease recovery and about available services (Pickelsimer 2002).

http://www.cdc.gov/doc.do/id/0900f3ec800081d7

"An estimated 300,000 sports-related brain injuries of mild to moderate severity occur in the United States each year (CDC 1997a)."

Looks to me like that is a major cost to society in terms of your
line of arguement, and yet they are wearing all kinds of protective gear. Again this is an activity that they chose to partake in and
I am not crying over the cost to society. Why aren't you?

In the final analysis I see liberty as having primary importance
over the need to protect us from our own devices.

I do favor laws to make helmets mandatory when doing those activites.

Helmet laws for people bike riding and inline skates?

Fortunately, I and a whole cast of other bike riders were
successful in the repeal of a bike helmet ordinance in my
town.

The helmet law had actually reduced the amount of people
riding their bikes and thus created an increase in usage
of automobiles at the time. I live in a place where alot
of people use bikes as transportation and we repealed the law.

I have yet to see the societal destruction that resulted from
our efforts.

Heck, we could outlaw cigarettes but I would be opposed to that as well.
Just think about the damage cigarettes do to society and I'm not
in favor of outlawing those either.

...wouldn't follow it and the police wouldn't enforce it. It was kind of funny in a way.

NOt even a 1000 killed....But a million have lost their souls and we have lost our moral standing in the world. I hope no one tries to make that analogy....

do they not count?

Remember when the right-wing media wanted to downplay the, US, casualties in Iraq by comparing them to murder rates in large cities? They said "look... more people are murdered in Detroit in one year than have died in Iraq. They also made the comparison to accidental deaths. Well you can put 9/11 in the same analogy. More people die in the US each year from gun deaths or non-seatbelt use or you name it than died as a direct result of 9/11. Yet, because of 9/11, we have embarked on three wars, killed thousands, gladly given up our rights at the legislative and personal level and tarnished our reputation around the world for (at least) a century to come. How's that for perspective?

Jay

As if there is any comparison.....

but since comparing apples to cherry pits seems to be the new de-rigueur for the Cons, then why not follow along. Thanks for not taking that post the wrong way.

Jay

that all just insist i am a totally irresponsible nye horrible person not wearing my seatbelt. hm i say. thank you for this number

and in logic lets drop it to how many people died wearing a seatbelt. now if any, wouldnt that suggest just because a person chose not to wear seatbelt, there is the possibility anyway they would have died if they were wearing the belt.

saying, that number isnt even that, to make the suggestion the only reason they died was because they werent wearing the belt

so yes, this law is totally a manipulation of my right to chose.

as with the guns

for infants and toddlers... Should we say that kids under 18 have to wear them? Folks who don't wear their seat belts are fucking idiots!

the only poerson that has died that i know is 17 year old cousin, 2, 3 in the morning falling asleep at the wheel, wearing a belt. 42 years of knowing a lot of people, and a lot of people that drive.

Folks who don't wear their seat belts are fucking idiots!

sounds to me like your issue, not mine. i am an idiot in all your judgement as you dont have a single clue about me, lol lol. ok. but having lived my life and seeing the choices i make, and having done a pretty good job, i may suggest to you, you are wrong

and always i enjoy your posts trumad.

In the last 10 years alone I've seen 3 dead bodies on the side of the road of folks who shot through their windshields because they weren't wearing their seatbelts. My own brother was involved in a flip-over wreck and he's knows for a fact he would have been dead if he didn't have his seatbelt on.

It seems to me that folks who defend not wearing your seatbelt are the same type of folks who claim cigarette smoking's not bad for you.

which would tend to put you on the side of advocating wearing seatbelts, cause in your world the numbers are concentrated beyond the odds. if you were to take your view and tally the numbers then you would be a high in percentage.

so maybe mine is a more realistic view of the odds.

now, luck i dont know. there are zillions of ways we can die

if you want to discuss the smoking studies and blantant lies, lol and injecting an unrational fear, ya i can go there too.

would never state it is good for a smokers health though

This is an illogical argument for those defending "no seatbelts"...

where did i say no seatbelts. anyone who wants to wear a seatbelt go for it. i get into someone else's car and they are the driver, the one responsible for my safety, i put on a seatbelt. out of respect for their feelings and sense of duty, obligation whatever to follow the law.

wear your seatbelt. cool by mean and good for you

...that some deaths are caused by seatbelts. I knew a guy who was in the military and refused to wear his because he had seen people stuck in rolled-over vehicles by their belts instead of thrown clear. And I am not sure what happens if the belt gets stuck because the mechanism crushed in the accident and someone dies in a vehicle fire because they can't get out.
Not arguing for or against wearing them here - just saying that no one has studied this (how many deaths are *caused* by seatbelts). In the end, I think it is a good law that car manufacturers have to put them in the car. I don't think forcing adults to wear them is particularly helpful. I can't put my hands on the statistics at the moment, but I remember reading once that many, many people die via household accidents - accidental poisoning, falling off ladders, electrocution etc. Most of those are pretty preventable too - yet I wouldn't want a cop standing in my living room to make sure I read all the labels on my household chemicals before I use them. I do it because it is the smart thing to do. At some point in life, you have to make these decisions on your own.
How much responsibility the government should have for protecting me against myself is a valid discussion to have and worth thinking about, no matter which side of the issue you come down on.
Point is well-taken that loved ones and society does bear the brunt of taking care of you for life if you become permanently disabled, and that's expensive, but one could make the same argument for a person who mixes ammonia with bleach and survives with a bunch of missing brain cells.
Lots of food for thought here - thanks for posting. And the Canadian gun statistics was interesting too!
Carol

are fucking idiots as well

then I call them Fucking idiots for that viewpoint! Not to say they're right about other things.....

So do you label anybody who disagrees with you an idiot?

and I only call folks idiots if they spout idiotic shit like this...

I guess I can just as easily say something like:
Idiotic morons who can't take care of themselves always
want big brother to come whipe thier asses for them.
And while they are doing it they don't want to feel left
out so they want to pass moronic laws that stipulate
everyone has to submit to municipal asswhiping.

Yeah, I can call people idiots too.

then it would become infected and then you'd have to go to the hospital and have a Nurse errr wipe your ass.

how many survived accidents because of seatbelts. Surely there is a large number of particularly gruesome accidents from which no one will survive, seatbelt or no. But what's the number of accidents total with and without seatbelts? What is the ratio of survivors to deaths in both groups. What is the ratio and degree of injuries in both groups. Those are the numbers to live by.

and the number you come up with. what are the odds that you will die in a crash because you are not wearing a seatbelt, on the assumption you can predict whether a person was saved because of a seatbelt or not. another empty number

what are the odds. one in every 500,000. factoring in also the amount of time on the road, what kind of driving we do, the weather, speed, age, ect, ect. yup

pure fact is all you need. List of accidents, number of people in accidents wearing seatbelts, number of people in accidents without seatbelts, number of deaths, number of deaths of people wearing seatbelts, number of deaths of people without seatbelts.

No assumptions nor predictions needed. Just facts.

what about the person that would have survived being ejected without seatbelt, that died wearing one. or the one that would have died with or without seatbelt.

with the odds so low, and careful driver over the 26 years of my driving history

i say shit happens.

i am not fearful of this. sorry,.

now, try to get me on a rollercoaster, or look down the grand canyon, you will hear me talking all kinds of danger,.

someones rotweiller on my front yard scares me more for my kids

There are loads of anecdotes and myth that really get us nowhere. I had a friend who never wore seatbelts and was launched from his vehicle when it rolled over in a one-car accident. When the vehicle came to a stop, the driver's seat was skewered by a fence post. My friend said, "See, if I'd been wearing my seat belt, I'd be dead." I said, "See, if you'd been wearing your seat belt, you might have been able to retain control of your car and never rolled it over in the first place."

Everyone comes to their own conclusions about wearing seatbelts and finds loads of anecdotes to support their beliefs one way or the other.

On the other hand, if you've had a statistics class, you understand that an analysis of what has happened in accidents every year for the past 10 years would give you more than enough actuarial data to determine percentages, formulate probability and determine trends scientifically. Coupled with a sprinkling of learning in physics and physiology, I take science over myth any day.

There is nothing in the constitution that gives you a right to drive. Of there were, then testing people to drive would most probably violate equal protection laws but it doesn't.

It's not who dies not wearing seatbelts, it's who lives and the nature of their injuries and future medical needs that is an infringement on everyone around them.

You rights end where your family and loved one's rights begin...try taking that approach.

and have told husband i want none of that. and he respects. he on the other hand wants to remain hooked to all the gadgets. i want to be cremated and plant a tree in my ashes, a bench would be nice.

he says no way, a whole in the ground thinking some one may burn him while he is still alive

go figure

though mine could be years of giving up life for my husbands wishes, pure of heart i say you got it. will hold your hand and take care of you forever if need be. i respect your right in choice too

The constitution outlines restrictions on the behvior of government not poeple.

It doesn't say in the constitution that you have a right
to say drink lemonade either.

That why you have the phrase "congress shall pass no laws"

It is not a document designed to outline the permissible
behaviour of people it is designed to outline permissible
behaviour of government.

pf permissible...so NO my arguments are not bogus.

countless

The Constitution is not intended to limit our actions or even those of our neighbors in our individual lives. It is intended to be a might heavy handed check on the actions of the government.

I do not have to provide a justification for acting in a certain way- the government must provide a damn good justification for trying to prevent me from acting in that way. Even if I *am* being "idiotic."

Sorry people, but the government's role is not to protect us from ourselves- just to protect us from others.

in Bowling for Columbine that gun laws don't prevent gun crime. Canada has fewer laws about buying, owning and using guns than most states and yet their death rate from guns is 1/1000 of ours.

His point was that gun crime is the product of a culture of fear.

And additionally I'd point out that you're comparing something that is by an large intentional (gun deaths) with something that is by and large accidental (car deaths). Your evidence also demonstrates the ineffectiveness of seatbelt laws.

administration, according to your statistics, from the ~30,000 reported by the CDC during those horrible, horrible, clinton years

The CDC's latest annual National Vital Statistics Report, which measures all causes of death in the U.S., covers calendar year 1999 and reports that the death rate from firearm injuries dropped 5.7 percent from 1998. The 1999 gun-death toll was 28,874 persons, the first time the figure has dropped below 30,000 since national statistics on gun deaths were first kept in 1979.

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,546237,00.html

It's a question of selfishness and being a part of society, just like motorcycle helmet laws. The heart of the point is that you are not living in a vacuum, and by being a part of society, you owe certain things to your fellow man. (I'm not accusing you of being a conservative, or even necessarily selfish, but I do say that you're shirking responsibility.) This is how libertarians think, completely disavowing their interrelationship with others.

Say a little old lady hits you due to her bad driving. Without a seat belt, you're paralyzed, grossly disfigured, or die painfully right in front of her. You've caused her an agony from which she may never recover. Had you worn your seatbelt, you would have been very badly hurt, but she would have brought you cookies in the hospital and tried to help, and with time, she might have gotten over it, learned her lesson to pay attention more or quit driving, and she would have been fine. Allowing you your "right" to do as you damn well please, she would be despondent, suicidal and cause shock waves through her friends and family.

You are not alone, and you actions impact (the pun is deliberate) many people. Personally, I don't feel you have any right to risk the emotional health of others by doing something to flout the reality of physics just for some narcissistic lifestyle choice or itsy-bitsy comfort.

It's a question of either being selfish or being a member of the human race; this is, among other things, why conservatives irk me so.

I don't mean to say you're creepy, I just don't think you've thought it through.

You owe it to society to minimize the grief you cause it, be it emergency services or the horror of a fellow human being. Think of the trauma the passing 5 year-old has at seeing your splattered bleeding body, rather than your shaken and shocked one. Think of the resonation among his/her family and friends.

No man is an island; that's why you're wrong.

For example:

"How can you sit there and eat those hamburgers like that.
When some child has to sit and watch you have a heart attack
and be traumatized by your twisting body laying there on the
sidewalk you will have done incredible damage to others.
I'm not saying your eating habits make you less than human
but maybe you ought to think more about society before
you order that double meat death trip. No man is an island."


Yeah, if I decide not to wear a seatbelt I must be some misanthropic misfit.

Life is full of risks and some people just can't deal with that.

Where one draws the line is the purpose of politics. Just because an ad absurdum argument can be cooked up doesn't mean that all such bans are neurotic oversanitizing of life.

A car is a deadly weapon. Implied consent is applied when piloting one, and that means that you warrant that you're fit to drive and knowledgeable of the consequences.

Think about open container laws. Maybe one knows how to drink and drive responsibility, and one beer on the long, hot drive home is something that makes your day. The idea is that one shouldn't be seen drinking and driving, since it promotes some kind of tacit acceptance of something that's very dangerous.

The line needs to be constantly redrawn as we learn more and experience the impact of our actions more. Believe me, I know the risks and peril involved in life, and I'm pretty reckless by a lot of standards, but the libertarian contention that "it's my life and I'll do as I please" simply doesn't hold water. Our actions have far reaching consequences, and joining the human race entails some responsibilities; society gives you much, and it asks for certain things in return. Principal among those requests is that you don't make a mess of things, including yourself in public. Driving, by definition, is in public. Think of it as littering with your smashed and traumatizing remains.

that is why the reductio ad absurdum arguement is relevant here.

Now you go on to bring up open container laws, yet a drunk driver
poses a threat to others. A person that does not wear a seatbelt
is not a threat to others the way drunk driver is, so your analogy is not valid.

Part of living in a free country is that citizens are responsible for their own behavior rather than being a subject of the nanny state.
I lean in the direction of making sacrifices for liberty whereas you seem to lean in the direction of giving up freedom for ... for what I don't really know since it's not safety.

Hit a car with a belted driver, and you're in for some trouble; hit a car with an unbelted driver, and you're up for manslaughter and some jail time. Tell me that's not an "injury".

The extremes define people and their affiliations, but life is decided in the middle. Anyone attempting to regulate human behavior will always encounter resistance, but regulation is the mother of civilization.

From this small sampling, it's a tad hard to divine what my personal tastes are for human activity, but go ahead. I hold us each more accountable to our fellow man than you do. Overdoing the regulation is no help to anyone, and it undermines the legitimacy of trying, but it's an ebb and flow of the evolution of law.

I am espousing an inherently liberal view, since I speak to the common good, whereas you align yourself with the traditional conservative approach: focus on the self. It's easy to make the legislation of behavior based on what's good for the group look like tyranny, but it's necessary nonetheless; the question is where that big 'ol line gets drawn.

Wear your damn seatbelt. If you don't have any respect for the law, at least have some for the laws of physics. Save your theatrics for some important causes of personal freedom and don't worry about messing up the crease in your pants. Why would you not want to wear your seatbelt? Why would you want others to see you not wearing one and encouraging them to do the same? Does it make you feel more manly? Does it make you feel special? Does it make you feel like a stylish rebel? Does it set you apart from the unthinking multitude?

I have no problem with cholesterol foolhardiness; even if the heart attack comes in public, it's not going to cause huge property damage, tie up an intersection, use as many emergency personnel/vehicles, or emotionally hurt anyone involved. (OK, maybe the waiter/waitress will feel somewhat guilty, but he/she was enabling your destruction, not causing it, like the analogous bad driver who knows it's her fault.)

I'm for personal freedom too, but when it infringes upon the rights of and imperils others (by trauma or escalation of the results of one's actions) we need to address it. There's also the incredibly important test of how much it "messes up your fun": just how excruciating is it to put on your seat belt? If it's just an expression of panache and style, it's narcissistic idiocy. Why would one even want to not have one on? When the reasons for eliminating a regulation are so tiny, the regulation really doesn't hurt that much. If one just "wants to have it his way", then that's a juvenile response and the respondent should be sent to bed without supper.

The feisty kid with the chip on his shoulder on the playground just makes everyone annoyed in the long run. If you waste energies fighting against regulation that helps us all and doesn't hurt anyone, then you'll be ignored in general as a hothead, and that's too bad; your voice will be needed in the looming battles against those who are taking our rights away, and you'll make the rest of us look ridiculous. I can assure you we're perfectly capable of looking ridiculous without your help.

Accidents will happen; try to make them as painless as possible. It disrupts everything. Your business associates will suffer more for your being out of commission longer, and it just mucks up everything. It's an interdependent world, so save your ammunition for battles that matter.

So, I'll amble off now and tyrannize people into a boring life of conformist slavery, and you can go back to your self-aggrandizing performance-life and help us all devolve back to squabbling primitives. Fair enough?

Boy, you said it.

Say "Hi!" to the Queen Ant when you get back to the hill for us, will ya?

I'm evil because I don't wear a seatbelt sometimes. :eyes:

You really need to get a grip on reality.

"You are not alone, and you actions impact (the pun is deliberate) many people. Personally, I don't feel you have any right to risk the emotional health of others by doing something to flout the reality of physics just for some narcissistic lifestyle choice or itsy-bitsy comfort."

Please tell me this is an elaborate word-joke you're working on.

If not, then I'm gonna have to ponder the wisdom of taking a shit tomorrow morning, lest I strain and pass-out, thus hitting my head and killing myself as I fall off the throne.
then some poor cop or EMT is gonna be traumatised by finding my rotting corpse in a coupla weeks. Oh, the humanity!

Guess pleasuring myself tonight is out, too...Might blow a coronary and lay there for a week or so, bloated pecker death-grasped in rotting fingers....

As for your "little old lady", she's not gonna bring you cookies. Her lawyer's gonna slap a suit on you for "mental anguish"...

I guess I'm sure gonna miss out on that old ladies cookies.
:crazy:

Guns, seatbelts, and all kinds of material objects aren't the problem...it is typically the people involved that are the problem.

The fellow who isn't wearing a seatbelt but drives like a maniac and who is killed in an accident was killed because of poor driving and most likely not the seatbelt...although the seatbelt does protect people...and if people choose not to wear them....well that's a roll of the dice..

The egotistical neighbor who is so upset over the neighbor's new tree who goes into his house to retrieve his gun is the problem...not the gun...although it makes killing the neighbor a less personal process than having to stab or strangle him...
and to be honest it might also be the neighbor's fault as well...if you know your neighbor is an unstable freak...would you continue to do things that you knew were going to piss him/her off...just to prove a point???? I have seen that behavior before and it never ends well.

#1, most of those deaths are suicides, blaming them on guns is silly (look at Japan's suicide rate)

#2, there are far more laws on the books about gun control than there are seatbelt laws

You're citing a bad high school essay as your source of information?

From The American Red Cross
Unintentional deaths/year (circa 2000)
Motor Vehicles: 41,000
Falls: 17,000
Poisoning: 10,500
Drowning: 4,000
Choking: 3,200
Fire: 3,100

Do you see gun accidents on this list anywhere?

I have no idea where you get your 11,000/yr for deaths from gunshot wounds but that is probably wrong too.

All I wonder is what is your point?

and I don't think it was accurate in the movie.

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports, 1999 - 2001

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

Only state w/ no seat belt laws for adults!!! :)

Live Free or Die bitch! :)

In all seriousness though I must disagree with the seat belt law, and let me ask you this. Should cops have the right to stop you just based on not wearing a seatbelt. Here in Maine they have to pull you over for some other reason (speeding, stop sign...) and then can ticket you if you are not wearing your seat belt.

I just had this conversation at work the other day and my friend was going on how the government should force you to buckle up but then went into this long rant about how cops shouldn't be able to pull you over just for that. I had to laugh because it was funny to hear him say that and then bitch about the rule being enforced.

the 3rd state to not require a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Do you live in Vermont?

I live like 15 minutes from the border in the Seacoast area.

Is it required by law in your state to have car insurance? I got stopped last summer in NH and told the officer I needed a few seconds to find my insurance card and he told me he didn't need it. I don't know if it was the fact I was an out of state driver or NH just doesn't require it by law.

Where did you get the idea that there are "very little laws" on guns, HCI? There's a whole Federal AGENCY, with counterparts at the state level concerned with guns, and plenty of laws.

...the letter below by Rep. Dingell for an example of calls to change this.

***************************
August 1, 2000



The Honorable Janet Reno

Attorney General

Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Reno:

I read with great interest Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder’s June 4, 2000, announcement regarding the release of two Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports on Federal Firearm Offenders and Background Checks for Firearm Transfers. As you are aware, effective and timely enforcement of our nation’s federal firearms laws is of tremendous importance to the Congress. As we continue to look for effective strategies to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands and reduce gun violence, reports such as these are useful in evaluating the progress of the Administration on this front.

As Mr. Holder notes in his statement, "the Brady Law has stopped 536,000 felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, and other persons not legally allowed to have a gun from getting a gun." This is indeed an impressive record. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is one of the most effective tools we have to crack down on gun criminals and prevent crime. However, stopping the sale of a firearm to a prohibited person is only one component of an effective strategy to reduce violent criminal behavior. Prosecuting those felons, fugitives and domestic abusers who attempt to purchase a firearm is the other half of the equation.

The BJS report on Firearm Offenders states that an average of 6,700 defendants were charged with a firearm offense in U.S. district courts between 1992 and 1999. On its face, that number of prosecutions seems incredibly low given the number of prohibited persons stopped by the instant check system. An analysis of the BJS reports confirms that the number of federal prosecutions is severely inadequate.

As you are aware, 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) makes the attempted purchase of a firearm by an individual who knowingly provides false information on a firearm transfer application (ATF Form 4473) a federal felony offense. In simple terms, it is a federal felony, punishable for up to ten years in prison, for felons, fugitives, domestic abusers or any other category of prohibited person to attempt to purchase a firearm if they knowingly falsify the purchase application.

Of the 204,000 attempted purchases stopped by NICS in 1999, the BJS report states that 71 percent of the rejections were for a felony conviction or indictment, 12 percent were for a disqualifying domestic violence conviction and three percent were rejected because the applicant was a fugitive from justice. Thus, 86 percent (approximately 175,440 persons) of those rejected by the instant check system had de facto committed another felony by falsifying ATF Form 4473. However, federal firearm prosecutions in aggregate totaled only 6,728. Although the report indicated the statistics for 1999 are preliminary data, that is a prosecution rate of only 3.29 percent. To put it another way, for every thirty rejected applications for a firearm transfer, there was only one prosecution.

If we are to concern ourselves with 1998, the latest year for which we have final data, the record is demonstrably worse. Of the rejected applications, totaling 90,000 in 1998, a mere 102 cases were federally prosecuted. That equates to a prosecution rate of less than one percent. Thus in 1998, for every 882 rejected applications for a firearm transfer there was only one federal prosecution. And while some have made the case that these cases are difficult to prosecute, I would note the statement of former federal prosecutor Andrew McBride of the Richmond office, now in private practice, that such cases are as easy to prosecute as "picking change up off the street."

Needless to say, these statistics are less than impressive. It is not hard to understand why this Administration has been criticized for being lax in enforcing existing federal firearm laws. In an effort to better understand why the Department of Justice is not doing more to prosecute violations of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6), I would appreciate your answers to the following questions:

Some of the reasons for this poor prosecutorial record are indicated in the BJS Federal Firearm Offenders report. Citing table 1,"Firearm suspects declined for prosecution by U.S. attorneys, by reason for declination, 1998," some of the reasons listed for not prosecuting known gun criminals include: minimal federal interest and DOJ/U.S. Attorney policy. I find this very curious. Please tell me:
What exactly is the policy for prosecuting violations of 18 U.S.C(a)(6)?

Why there would be a DOJ/U.S. Attorney policy not to prosecute those who violate federal firearms laws?

Why there would be "minimal federal interest" in prosecuting those who violate federal firearm laws?

Another reason that was cited in table 1 for declining to prosecute was "weak evidence." Without knowing the facts of each individual case, I would note the following: If an individual knowingly makes a false statement on ATF Form 4473, that is a felony. Form 4473 requires the prospective purchaser to state whether or not he/she is disqualified from purchasing a firearm. Furthermore, each disqualifying criterion is listed on Form 4473 and requires a yes or no answer. Form 4473 also requires a signature by the prospective purchaser and the seller. Form 4473 also requires many other identifiers to verify the identity of the transferee. Thus, if an individual is rejected because NICS system reports that a prospective purchaser is a convicted felon and falsified a document in an attempt to obtain a firearm, that is a violation of U.S.C. 922(a)(6). It seems to me that this should be a relatively open and shut case.
However, of the 204,000 individuals denied the purchase of firearm "nearly 3 out of 4 rejections for firearm transfer occurred because the applicant either had a felony conviction or was under felony indictment." Therefore, it follows that over 150,000 individuals committed a federal felony by falsifying ATF Form 4473. Yet, a February, 2000 General Accounting Office report on the Implementation of NICS showed that in FY 1999, U.S Attorneys filed only 278 cases involving alleged false statements of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) and 316 cases were pending at fiscal yearend. Please explain the lack of federal prosecutions for false statements on ATF Form 4473. Also explain towhat degree "weak evidence" contributes to the unwillingness of U.S. Attorneys to prosecute 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) violations.

Appendix III of the GAO audit describes federal enforcement policies regarding falsified firearm purchase applications. It states:
In November 1998, EOUSA provided Brady Act prosecutive guidance . . . The guidance stated that thousands of potential Brady false-form cases would likely reach ATF field offices annually, and that the system "would grind to a halt if ATF investigated all the denials."

The report goes on to say that the EOUSA guidance recommended that U.S. Attorneys should "make every effort to increase the number of Brady false-form prosecutions (from the current annual level of 50 cases)."

The GAO audit also states that in deciding which false form violations to forward to U.S. Attorneys, ATF’s policy is to refer those cases where the "denied purchaser’s criminal history has records of violent felonies, serious drug trafficking, or prior firearms convictions." Yet the GAO report indicates that over half of the referrals of violent criminals were closed without investigation or prosecution.

In light of these GAO findings, I would like answers to the following:

Why were half of the referrals of violent criminals closed without investigation or prosecution?
What efforts has the Department of Justice undertaken to increase the number of false form prosecutions? Has EOUSA issued any additional guidance regarding 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) violations?
Since November 1998, how many 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) violations have been referred to U.S. Attorneys by ATF field offices?
How many 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) false form prosecutions have U.S. Attorneys undertaken since the November 1998 EOUSA guidance?
I do not believe that violent felons, upon learning they are disqualified from firearm ownership, give up their search to obtain a firearm. Please explain why U.S. Attorneys are unwilling to enforce 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) even for violent felons who attempt to purchase firearms?
At a June 21, 2000, hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding improvements to NICS, Mr. David Loesch, Assistant Director in charge of the Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the FBI testified that the law prohibiting felonious misrepresentation of firearm eligibility "is essentially unenforceable." Would you please expand on this statement and explain why your representative characterized this law as such? Do you share the view that this law is unenforceable? Please comment on the enforceability of U.S.C. 18 (a)(6) in all its specifics and in general.
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. I look forward to your response. If you have any questions about this matter, please have your staff contact Michael Hacker of my office at (202) 225-4071.

With every good wish,



Sincerely,





John D. Dingell

Member of Congress

n/t

If you are legally barred from purchasing a firearm, but apply for the purchase of same through perfectly legal means, then you have done NOTHING illegal. It isn't enough that he supports banning the sales of firearms to people who have paid their debt to society. Now he wants to play a game of tyranical one-upmanship. Will Dingell only be happy when half the country are prisoners and the other half guards?

...point about restoring Second Amendment rights to those that have paid their debts to society. The NRA fought for this and took heavy fire. This was an issue that was brought up in my state when petty drug offenses were moved to a medical court and not a criminal one.

Just what we need, a law giving MORE power to the government to detain & question you, and strip-search your car, based on the whims of an unaccountable government employee.

From what I've read, that number includes deaths that are from police shooting suspected criminals, and of citizens shootings that are ruled as self-defense. Simply saying "11,127 people die from gunshot wounds each year" oversimplifies the fact that many of those shootings are justified by the circumstances and those committing the shootings are not actually criminals.

From the New York Times last November:

Once World Leader in Traffic Safety, U.S. Drops to No. 9

Dr. Jeffrey W. Runge, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said: "If everybody buckles up, we can save between 7,000 and 9,000 lives a year. That would drop our fatality rate off the table. The only way you get to 1.0 is to deal with these very important human factors." Most traffic safety experts agree that the seat belt remains the world's most effective safety device. The nation's usage rate has risen considerably over the past couple of decades, to nearly 80 percent today. But top safety regulators in Canada and Australia say their use of seat belts is about 10 percentage points higher.

Sid

you shouldn't wear a seatbelt. They're arguing that it shouldn't be required by law.