Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:13:21 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lar@voyager.net+nospam+
|
Viewed:
|
359 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> 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.
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.
>
> 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.
Right... and that's one reason I support seat belt use, actually,
because the injuries are worse if they're not worn. The other reason is
the loss of control factor, if you're not wearing yours you can lose
control by being thrown away from the wheel on first impact, which may
matter greatly to innocent bystanders who happen to be near you.
However, the gun analogy is specious, not that you can get the gov't to
admit it. The wounds you get from knives, bats, tire irons, arrows, etc.
are worse (more expensive to treat) than bullet wounds, but must be
triaged into the middle category. Lots of gunshot victims conveniently
make it into category 3 before they get to the hospital.
(triage literally means separating into 3 categories: those who will
recover whether you treat them or not (so don't unless you have excess
capacity and they can pay), those who will recover if you help, but not
if you don't (put all your energy here), and those who will no recover
no matter what you do (so don't bother, you're wasting resources)
> 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…
Why be hypothetical? :-) Let's do it! As for those without common sense,
think of it as evolution in action.
--
Larry Pieniazek - lpieniazek@mercator.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) Funny this conversation is going on right now. I just got a ticket for my son having his shoulder strap looped around the back of the seat. I just looked up the regs and this law is not enforceable unless I was pulled over for some other (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
