Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:28:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
344 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> Seat belts are a little different because they are something that can be seen
> from outside of a vehicle. An officer can come up along side the car and tell
> whether or not you are wearing it without actually searching the car. A gun
> can be concealed in a car or home. To determine if the gun has a lock on it
> would require that it either be within plain sight, or as the result of a
> search.
One reason the gov't is so rabid about seatbelts is because a lot of the
medical treatment provided to accident victims (often greatly in excess of
existing insurance coverage) comes from public funds. Likewise, the argument
goes, since a sizable portion of the medical given to shooting victims comes
from public funds, the gov't is trying to protect its financial interests at
least as much as it's trying to usurp individuals' rights or curtail gun
ownership. Again, that's the argument--the reality varies widely, of course.
It would be interesting, in hypothetical terms, to see what would happen to
this stance if public medical funding were eliminated, so that the gov’t no
longer had a financial interest to protect…
Certainly we can't legislate common sense, and it would be foolish to try,
but in one sense these laws are trying to protect financial concerns, not
sense (common or otherwise!). The reality, naturally, differs from the ideal,
but on some teenytiny level that argument remains.
Just a thought.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) That really is the point. The government has no business subsidizing medical treatment. Everything the government gets involved in goes thru the roof price-wise. That's the same problem with insurance, if the consumer doesn't have to pay the (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) Michigan has switched from secondary to primary, you can be stopped for just a seat belt infraction instead of the collateral damage (Has to be a second ticket) that CO uses. (...) Right... and that's one reason I support seat belt use, (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) Ahh! Now I see what you're saying. That is a valid fear. I don't see that particular scenerio coming about though. It's too hard to enforce a law like that as a primary infraction. In order to enforce it, enforcement agencies would have to (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
139 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
