I don’t understate or underestimate the impact or cost of obesity, I only point out that no one else has to directly pay for your care because you got fat by your own choice, but others might and often do foot the bill for the irresponsibility of not wearing a seat belt.
Discounting is a partial fix….by how much? How do they decide how much worse your injuries are because you didn’t wear a belt…and who decides…and what’s the cost of doing that math? I’m perfectly fine with people not being safe as long as they accept 100% of the risk….it should be wear no belt, get no injury recovery (or insurance coverage) period. Anything less makes the case for seatbelt requirements imo.

I'm having a hard time imagining the case where wearing a seat belt is going to make you have better control of your car after a collision.

Your moral case, for wearing a seatbelt, while personally compelling, doesn't mean the government should be controlling that activity for individuals. Being selfish is usually not a crime.

There is shared risk if you look deep enough in all activities that people engage in throughout their lives. Newtboy's assertion that these types of activities should be regulated because of their knock-on effects doesn't seem practical in a "free" society.

The reason I don't understand why this is a law is because the affects to society are so low and are similar to many other unregulated choices people are allowed to make. The inconsistency is painful.

If those people could sign waivers refusing any medical care they don’t pre pay for, waiving any physical damages if they aren’t at fault (I shouldn’t have to pay for your preventable injuries just because we crashed) and hospitals honor those waivers…just a dot on your license that says if your wallet is empty you agree to be a live organ donor…I’d agree.
Since that’s not the case and as often as not the paying public ends up footing the bill in one way or another for the irresponsible behavior like not wearing a seat belt, mandating seat belt usage seems 100% reasonable.
Also, since most learning/teaching is by example, it’s near child abuse to not wear it with kids in the car. Akin to shooting drugs or playing Russian roulette in front of them….taking a deadly risk for no purpose.

Seat belts will better help keep you in control of your vehicle after a collision. If your car rolls over or you go sideways into a tree it helps keep you from back, head and neck injuries which could leave you with pain and mobility issues long after the crash. I also see it as being very selfish to your family and loved ones who potentially may have to care for you if you survive, in which case you will be very annoyed and annoying.

It should be mandated by government because some people think they are the best drivers ever.

Does any of your family members drive the disabled alarm car?

It's a public safety issue if you speed & crash, and then got flung onto the road.... but that's admittedly extreme.

I myself prefer to take the seatbelt off when I'm reversing.

The guy not only need to wear a seat belt, he needs to be strapped in a padded room...

Your video, Man Rips Up His Cash Over Seat Belt Ticket, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Big surprise, Trump’s false announcement about his pending arrest a week ago was little more than a fund raising ploy.
He immediately began hammering supporters with demands for cash to protect their favorite (disgraced) president.
There was no evidence he was about to be arrested last Tuesday, the grand jury was/is still in session…he just said it for grift. He’s raised millions over the claim, millions he spends on gold seat belt buckles and toilet seats for his plane, not his flailing failing defense.

What no one seems to have pieced together is, his behavior over the last few years has been calculated to demonstrate a complete break from reality because he’s going to use an insanity defense to shield himself from court…and it will work.

They told me the same thing in the 70’s so I gritted my teeth and rode the Texas Cyclone in Astroworld, a huge wood roller coaster, and the very next day someone died falling off the same coaster.
Soon after they replaced the automotive seat belts with a lap bar.

I have a car window breaker/seat belt cutter in my car. I wouldn't be surprised if that guy injured his hand trying to punch that window out. He thought about trying it again but I guess he learned the first time. It's suggested you break a car window in the corner and not the center.

I also have an air horn and pepper spray in the driver door pouch in the event of a wild animal threat during a body removal in remote locations or any other threats.

Birds Aren't Real, so no threat there.

Being against the vaccine?

At ░5░9░ you should remember the AIDS epidemic?

Think about how people were worried about it? How they had to learn about it? That it was, for a while, a real fear amongst the unknowing? But after a while, most people understood the risk. After all that, shouldn't you've learned?

When those nurses came back from Africa, caring for Ebola victims, then they got treatment also - which group was most vocal? The changes of them contracting it were even more remote than AIDS!

Being ░5░9░ , should remember living under the threats of Herpes, Hepatitis, AIDS, West Nile, Lyme, Ebola, Hunta...all those viruses...having to learn the what it is, what it does, how it's caught, and the risks of ignoring sound medical advice - why has it changed?

Remember seat belts and helmet laws? Child seats? Live with it and had no choice about it. Those help keep people alive.

Why is having a SAFE - EFFECTIVE - and F R E E vaccine such a misery?

[Guy pushing the swing] Ooops, that didn't go according to plan, but same effect, so meh?

End joke.

Who designed the swing? Even a non-engineer idiot like me see a few major problems (and not counting how solid the foundation it's on). The bump is caused by the swing structured in a rectanglular shape instead of a trapezoid shape looking from the front/back. Then looking from the sides, it's shaped like right triangle " /I " instead of an inverted V triangle, with no counterweight to compensate when the swing is pushed to the open cliff side. And then, of course, seat belts.

That's a EIA incident waiting to happen sooner or later. It's just sheer luck that they aren't dead.

What sort of evidence?

- Accusation/testimonial evidence?

- Or Physical evidence that is an invariant indicator of rape, that you can hold, see, measure, etc?



Anyone can accuse. That's effortless. Takes barely more energy than breathing.

(It's also effortless for a group of sour girls to gang up on a dude that upset them. Because "f that guy'. (That attitude isn't even rare.))



Physical evidence? People are convicted day in and day out of all sorts of things without physical evidence.

(Court is after all a popularity contest.)




My scary moment was when a cop detained me and told me he was going to charge me with : reckless driving, driving without a seat belt, and with threatening his life.

Why? Because I pulled up to a road block and asked him if I could drive past his road block to go home (which was a short way past the road block)... and he was having some emotional stability/triggering issues at the time, and he instantly turned red and went full on tirade mode.

Fortunately for me, after detaining me a few hours, some switch flipped in his head again and he just went to his car, got in, and drove off. Surreal.

So I asked myself :
If I had been charged, what would be the difference in court, vis-a-vis evidence, between it being a lie, and it being the truth?
Answer : No difference.

All he threatened me with was provable only by his word, and no evidence was required. I likely would have gone to jail, and had my life turned upside down... all on some person's grimace.

My view on evidence changed that day.
I will _NEVER_ convict anyone of anything, without physical tangible evidence that I can hold in my hand and see with my eyes, or at least run forensic tests on.
Testimony doesn't mean _shit_. It's absolutely, patently _worthless_.

(I also now run a dash cam everywhere I drive to protect myself from false accusations)




Basically, unless you have physical proof, I don't care.
Whatever you have to say, prove it.
No proof, no cares.

That goes for all accusations of anything ever. Across the board. Absolute.

It's the standard I want people to have for me, and it's the standard I have for others.

-scheherazade





(Aside, unrelated : I know a dude that was raped by a girl (he was nearly paralyzed drunk at his own house party). Wasn't even a secret. People at the party knew it happened. Nobody cared. When he complained, all anyone said was "Oh whatever. Shut up get over it". It wasn't even a question of 'did it happen?', it was a matter of "so what?".)

What she should really be worried about is her lack of seat belt.

Wallets, and cell phones, hair brushes, glasses cases, envelopes, small boxes, sticks, juice boxes, seat belts, toy trucks, cigarettes, cigars .....pretty much anything you can hold in your hand.
A better idea is just ban hands. No hands, you know there's no gun in their hands, problem solved. Then you don't even have to touch the second amendment to end gun violence, guns are pretty safe without fingers.
Glad that issue is resolved.

Lol, I read "imaginary Hiller" (and assumed you meant Hillary). My bad.



We have reasonable laws already.
Most things people ask for either already exist (and anti-gunners just don't know because they don't have to follow those laws), or only screw collectors and sportsmen while not doing anything to reduce risk (which I already covered, I assume you read the earlier part, eg California compliant AR15, etc).



Nobody expects to need to form a militia.
Nobody expects the country to go to hell.

The seat belt analogy is about preparedness for unlikely events.
Like, you don't "need" flood insurance in Houston - unless you do.

Owning a gun also hurts nobody.
By definition, ownership is not a harm.

Almost all guns will never be used to do any harm.
The very statement that "guns are all about hurting other people" is a non-empirical assertion.

Just shy of every last gun owner doesn't imagine themselves as Bruce Willis. Asserting that they do is a straw man.


You remind me of Republicans that complain that Black people are welfare queens (so they can redirect money out of welfare). Or Republicans that complain that Trans people are pedophiles in hiding (so they can pander to religious zelot voters). Creating a straw man and then getting mad about the straw man (rather than the real people) is self serving.


* Only the rarest few people think they are Roy Rogers. That is a straw man that does not apply to just shy of every gun owner.
* You don't need a gun for home defense... unless you do.
* Differences in likelihood of death armed vs unarmed is happenstance.
(Doesn't matter either way. Googled some likelihoods : http://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/02/15/how-likely-are-you-to-die-from-gun-violence-this-interesting-chart-puts-it-in-perspective/
You'd have to suffer death 350'000 times before you're at a 50/50 chance of your next death being by firearms.)
[EDIT, math error. Should say 17'000 years lived to reach a 50/50 chance of death by firearms in the next year]
* Technically, even 1 vote gets someone elected. You don't control who is on the ballot.



NRA and NSSF are on life support. They have to fight the influence of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, most major newspapers. They are way outclassed. Current events don't help either.
The "big bad NRA" rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. As is the rhetoric that the NRA only represents the industry.

-sceherazade