Firearms vs seat belts

[TXAZ]

"You're immortal till you die"

I've needed both based on life experience.

In working with youth groups (where most every teen is (or at least feels) immortal) and having lived in a country that is fixated on pre-destination where seat belts (nor stopping at red lights) are not needed because God will take you at a precise, pre-determined time. Some beliefs can have tragic consequences.

A better moniker IMHO, created by the Boy Scouts ~100 years ago, is "Be Prepared".

 

[Jo6pak]

I have never used the seatbelt argument. I prefer comparing self defense guns to fire extinguishers or the knowledge of CPR.
A seatbelt really only protects me from harm, whereas having a fire extinguisher(at home or in the vehicle) could possibly save someone else from harm too.
Granted, I don't carry a concealed extinguisher on my person, but you hopefully get my point.

 

[born2climb]

While I've never needed to draw a weapon, I've been in a couple of incidents when the feel of it in hand sure felt reassuring. And I NEVER wear my seatbelt.

 

[motorhead0922]

Thanks for all your votes and comments.

With 96 votes so far, 74% of voters have needed a seat belt and 47% of voters have needed a firearms at least once. To put it another way, 26% of voters have needed a seat belt zero times, and 53% of voters have needed a firearm zero times.

Either way you look at it, it appears a person is about half as likely to need a firearm on a random day as to need a seat belt. It's certainly not an order of magnitude difference.

 

[shortwave]

Shucks....I was hoping with this survey we could get the percentage of those needing a firearm up high enough to submit our studies to Biden and the feds. to require a gun in working order in every house same as seat belts are required in all auto's.

 

[44 AMP]

I dislike the usual seatbelt/gun comparison, primarily for one reason. Seatbelts are passive safety devices. Guns are not. A fire extinguisher is a much closer comparison.

Wear a seatbelt, and it protects you, to the full measure of its ability (although in some circumstances it can actually cause worse injury, that is a different matter).

Wear a gun, or have a fire extinguisher, and it "protects" you only to the degree you are able to use it properly.

Also adding to the disparity is the fact that seatbelts are virtually impossible to use as an offensive weapon. I suppose if you could get your "victim" into your car you could strangle them with the seatbelt, but other than that, what can you use them for?

A gun can be used offensively. And so can a fire extinguisher (impact weapon). Ok, yes, there are more practical choices for weapons than a fire extinguisher, but that's a different point.

And, I think that when you look at the amount of time most of us spend on the road, drawing any conclusion about frequency of need between seatbelts and firearms is, essentially an exercise in futility.

Here's an example (only concerning driving)
"most accidents happen within 25 miles of one's home".

This is a fact. But, what does it mean? Does it mean that we are more careful drivers when we are further away from home? Or that we are less than normally vigilant close to home?

I don't think so.

Its simple numbers. Most accidents happen within "XX" miles of home because we are always there!

Even on a longer trip, one starts at home, and travels through that "danger zone" before going further, and one passes through it again when returning home. One need not be a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist to be able to figure out that where ever you spend most of your time, that is where you are going to have most of your accidents.

 

[RedBowTies88]

Here's the thing.


Most people think that if they don't get into an accident they won't need a seatbelt.

However if you need to make an evasive maneuver it's going to be awful hard to make corrections if you're being thrown about the cabin (of course 90% of the people in the country are such bad drivers I would almost rather them be away from the controls). This is why I'm in favor of seatbelt laws for drivers and drivers only, and I'm a stout libertarian.

To get back to the original intent of the thread, I've never needed a seatbelt for protection during a crash. I've been rear ended, side swiped, and fender bent all by drunks. I attribute my lack of more serious accidents to driving sports cars almost exclusively when not on work business and KNOWING HOW TO DRIVE THEM. I can't tell you how many serious accidents I've avoided by having the outstanding braking and maneuverability qualities of a well built and light car.


as far as firearms go, I've never needed one for self defense and hope I never do. If by some tragic line of events I end up needing a gun to defending myself I sure hope it's while I'm home or out of state.

 

[Region Rat]

I've only needed a seatbelt once, but was not wearing it. Back in the day, when I was a kid, the seatbelts got tucked back in the seats to keep them out of the way. Those were the days of kids piled everywhere in the car, and carseats that hung over the back of the front seat. (remember those?).

I didn't wear seatbelts until I was car #10 in a 10 car pileup on the freeway. I was in my late 20's. I've worn one ever since. So has everyone in my car. Funny how that's all it takes to change a lifetime habit.

I don't intend to have that one experience with self protection.

Funny, but my Dad carried all the time. Didn't go for the seatbelts then though.

 

[RedBowTies88]

In a similar fashion one of good friends was a seatbelt wearer until he was involved in a very minor accident and the seatbelt wouldn't release and he had to be cut free from it.

Now he refuses to wear them for fear of being in a fire.