Murders and Shootings

Araysar_sl said:

so who's the autie in your family?

Click to expand...

You seemed pretty reasonable on FoH, you were definitely one of my favorite posters. Why did you turn into such a faggot?

He's always been this way dude. Let's talk about seatbelts.

Seatbelts..hmm..
Required by law, a good idea and generally saves the wearer their own life.

But the fact people aren't wearing a seat belt has no effect on me in my car. While I like the idea and do use one, I dont think I should get a ticket for not wearing one. It doesn't have any public safety service to it. Can the fact someone not wearing one affect someone else's driving or their own? It helps in a crash when after the point the driver has lost all control.

Gavinrad_sl said:

You seemed pretty reasonable on FoH, you were definitely one of my favorite posters. Why did you turn into such a faggot?

Click to expand...

This.

Dr Neir_sl said:

Seatbelts..hmm..
Required by law, a good idea and generally saves the wearer their own life.

But the fact people aren't wearing a seat belt has no effect on me in my car. While I like the idea and do use one, I dont think I should get a ticket for not wearing one. It doesn't have any public safety service to it. Can the fact someone not wearing one affect someone else's driving or their own? It helps in a crash when after the point the driver has lost all control.

Click to expand...

You dying or getting severely injured costs money, namely to yourself, the State/Local governments, and your family.

If we didn't have elementary schools, we wouldn't have elementary school shootings.

Just sayin'

Jesus christ, he was kidding about the seatbelts thing. If you want to see Araysar's true colors, that's the topic you do it with.

Less unnecessary injuries in minor crashes do help keep insurance premiums down, at least.

Big Phoenix_sl said:

Where in the blue fuck is the logic of motorcycles then? Seatbelt laws are the paradigm of give an inch go a mile mindset of the government and politicians btw.

Click to expand...

Isn't the fact that they did not ban motorcycles contrary to not taking an inch and going a mile?

Araysar_sl said:

A multi vitamin and an hour of exercise a day would do a lot more in keeping down health insurance costs and premiums than seatbelts. Report for your mandatory gym class, citizen.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I do not have to worry about health insurance costs. You are correct ofcourse, except that you only have to spend 10 seconds per day on your seatbelt.

On a serious note, laws like this are needed because many people are too fucking stupid to use basic safety precautions unless the government threatens to fine them.

Flank_sl said:

On a serious note, laws like this are needed because many people are too fucking stupid to use basic safety precautions unless the government threatens to fine them.

Click to expand...

I disagree with Ary (I'm fine with seat belt fines that can be issued in addition to a pull over, not with seat belt stops on their own.)--but I'll say this. Legislating with stupidity in mind, is a sure fire way to bring the fail. You don't like how dumb your citizens are? Educate them. Don't try to tackle the symptom.

Motorcycles the rider is pretty much guaranteed dead if they get into any manner of high speed collision or vs. an auto. Helmet or not, at a certain point you're just fucked. That being said, helmets are still good because they can help in lower speed collisions. You could be going 20 mph, but if you fall and crack your bare head vs. the pavement, been nice knowing you!

motorcycles should be number 1 reason to increase your insurance. a biker with a couple of broken bones is going to cost $30k before the lawsuit. i would hate to see what the bills are like in helmet optional states.

Soygen_sl said:

You're driving on government roads, with your government issued driver license, following a myriad of other government-mandated rules of the road. Why is the seatbelt the one to take issue with?

Click to expand...

Again, I don't mind the law--just answering to explain. It's because, out of your list, it's the only one that doesn't involve you affecting someone else. When I get onto the road, I interact with tons of other citizens, my rights mix with theirs--this is why the state has every right to legislate fairness and safety. However, if I don't wear a seat belt, then I die, not you or anyone else. Government shouldn't legislate personal choice unless there is a reason to believe people can't make rational decisions based on information available (Like, healthcare for example--I can give reasons why a rational person might not be able to reach a reasonable conclusion there.)

Soygen_sl said:

It's not 'victimless' though. Sure, you may be the only person physically harmed, but if you get injured, a lot more people and money become involved in that accident. EMT, police, insurance, etc. Injuries are more likely without a seatbelt. I understand the desire for less government intrusion on our personal rights and freedoms, but I just don't agree with the argument that nobody else is affected.

Click to expand...

The government should not be legislating to protect insurance companies from their clients when such resources can be handled civilly. Just because you cost an agency more money, doesn't mean you've created a victim. Criminal codes are supposed to protect you from violating the rights of other citizens. That simply doesn't happen here. You need to show harm to another citizen. The EMT's can charge you more, so can the insurance and the police are paid through taxation to handle all emergencies (As far as I know, nearly every court case asking hikers, for example, to pay for their rescue was struck down.)

Costing more money doesn't create a victim.

Edit: And usually you'll find me rolling my eyes about slippery slopes arguments. But this is one of those few cases, where America is really shining a light on such laws. We're deciding if government should limit soft drink sizes, if people should have the right to end their own lives and whether or not every American has the right to put things into their body that willonlyaffect them (Drugs). How we handle something as simple as seat belts is a direct reflection on how responsible we think our citizens are. If we need to have laws against a victimless crime like seat belts, then what hope do we ever have of stopping the madness that is the drug war? (And the drug war is a PERFECT example of why victimless crime legislation can grow to become catastrophic.)

Like I said, I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments...But in this one case, there are so many old laws that show no clear victim, that are really, really doing harm in this country, that I think that even something as silly as seat belts doesn't seem so silly under that light. (Again, even if I'm fine with the laws as they are--IE a "tack on".)