News flash.
It is the government.
Private citizens or businesses do not impose traffic laws.
- Status
It is the government.
Private citizens or businesses do not impose traffic laws.
Surely you do not believe that crime will drop for the abscence of legal guns.
A criminal by definition is not going to submit to law…including gun laws.
Keeping guns legal will allow the law abiding citizens a legal means of defending themselves.
Insurance rates are based upon risk.
The private individual has the choice of just how risky their behavior will be.
The higher insurance rates are part of their choice.
R
Rascalking
Guest
Now now VZ71, don’t start talking about things like personal responsbility. Goverment can take care of anything and we don’t have to think for ourselves.
(and I’m totally kidding, your posts have been dead on accurate)
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
Statistics support that.
But that was not even my argument. My argument is that people should be allowed the ability to defend themselves.
C
Catholic90
Guest
When the criminals have the guns, but the citizens do not, will crime drop? No.
When the criminals have the guns AND citizens have guns, can the citizens help keep the criminals in check? Yes.
Criminals will always have guns. By disallowing law abiding citizens to own guns, you are taking away a level of protection. Not good.
Besides, we will need those arms if the British ever try to invade…it happened once, so it might happen again. Can never be too safe!
L
LilyM
Guest
I haven’t had dealings re car insurance myself, but I doubt the insurer asks everyone who applies or renews whether they and all other drivers of their car intend to wear seatbelts - being an offense in some jurisdictions many would be too scared to answer honestly if they don’t.
So what likely happens is they get overall stats of how many crash victims don’t wear belts, factor the extra costs in and bump everyone’s insurance up a bit. Voila, that’s innocent people paying for those stupid enough not to wear belts, and not by their own choice.
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
And how would they keep those criminals in check? By just having a gun on display? No, but shooting back. How do you think it would work for a citizen to defend themselves from a criminal without using the gun? Why is it that people are denying or ignoring the fact that the more guns you have the more murders you’re going to have?! Is this a fact Americans don’t like to think about?
That’s a poor argument. You’re more likely to be stabbed or shot yourself if you carry a weapon. That’s a fact, look it up. Protection is not the ability to do harm back.
We don’t need to invade! Just have to show we have ancient legal documents of ‘ownership’ and then move in, it worked for Israel…Besides, we will need those arms if the British ever try to invade…it happened once, so it might happen again. Can never be too safe!
C
Catholic90
Guest
J
jilly4ski
Guest
Its called a deterrent. If a criminal knows or assumes one has a weapon they would be less likely to commit a crime against you. (here we are talking bout calculated crimes not crimes of passion). Here in the states we do not call self defense murder.
And your second statement speaks of a gross misuse of statistics. Did they control for those participating in illegal and inherently dangerous activities, like drug deals or gang rivalry. Or how about those who fear physical violence and would likely be shot or stabbed regardless if they are carrying a weapon or not. Or for those who die in hunting accidents. I would like to see the stats for law abiding citizens who carry or own a weapon and their stats for getting kill thus versus others in their situations who do not carry or own. (I am guessing they are very low either way).
Quite a bit of uncertainty there.
So, we can reduce the uncertainty there by actually asking agents within the insurance agency.
OK, what ACTUALLY happens is that the insurer asks and then checks the police record and accident reports if there are any.
They also check the drivers record on an ongoing basis.
Then they provide a policy with the discount for seat belt use, and if you are caught without using belts your coverage is cancelled.
L
LilyM
Guest
Great so the driver’s coverage is cancelled.
So … what does that mean in the event of an accident? Will the driver not be taken to and treated at the nearest, usually understaffed and underfunded, ER? Not compete for stretched resources that are also needed by those whose injuries aren’t their own fault? Will overstretched police not be required to attend the scene regardless?
Equally importantly, does it mean anything for other motorists or pedestrians who may be needlessly injured when the unrestrained driver becomes a flying projectile? Will such people not still be an unnecessary and easily-avoidable burden on our healthcare systems?
There are many factors in the mix here, and increasing insurance by no means evens out the balance.
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
This Thread still goes on?
Are there fellows who refuse to wear seat belts?
Suppose that the police would gibe 1 million dollars to each one wearing a seat belt!
All the arguments against would disappear…
Are there fellows who refuse to wear seat belts?
Suppose that the police would gibe 1 million dollars to each one wearing a seat belt!
All the arguments against would disappear…
If they did not have their seat belt on, they likely will not be covered for the accident and have to pay the damages themselves.
Of course they will, it is only their insurance coverage that will be revoked.
The police have to respond to the accident wether or not seat belts are used.
And medicine is not a zero sum game in America as it would be in a country with socialized medicine.
If the accident is serious enough that the driver (remember there is a steering column in front of them that will hold them down in most cases) is thrown out with a high enough velocity that they cause injury as a projectile, then you have other problems and I doubt this human canonball is top on the list.
Health care is still private in this country.
The only reason you brought in ‘many factors’ is because your initial point holds no water.
This one is just as leaky, but with the shotgun like approach it is more complicated to refute.
You wish to claim an extra burden on health care, but everyone in a serious accident burdens the system whether or not belts are used.
You wish to claim the driver is a danger to others, but the circumstances in which a driver is ejected at all is so rare that you are playing to the extreme.
Add to this projectile driver (rarely happens) to projectile with enough force to cause injury AND actually hitting someone and one can see long odds you are claiming support your contention.
Just curious…can anyone actually find a recorded incident of a driver being ejected and causing injury to someone else through impacting them?
Doubt it.
We are covering the business it is of the government whether or not a seat belt is used.
No, it would still not be the business of the government.
You are simply trying to bribe people into giving up rights.
K
kelvinf
Guest
Is it the gov’t’s business to impose speed limits?
Yes it is.
The choice of speeding does not involve the driver alone, but it also endangers the people around him.
The driver does not have the right to make that choice of risk for others and the government should have a law in place to stop that.
K
kelvinf
Guest
Exactly. A person with a class B licence can drive a car with 8 other people. He equally endangers the lives of the passengers. Hence the gov’t steps in with seatbelt regulations.
P
purplesunshine
Guest
but as I posted earlier seatbelt regulations don’t seem to make much (if any) difference in mortality rate. Infact, the state with NO seatbelt laws is the 3rd safest state to drive in. I’m not arguing the value of a seatbelt, only goverment has misstepped on this becuase regulation dosn’t equal saving lives. Statistically, having laws seemes to do nothing, though some staticts would suggest that becuase of tax dollars spent and poliece being misused it costs us much more TO have seatbelt laws.
- Status