The rates been steadily declining since 1941 in terms of deaths per mile driven, that's probably the best raw figure to use since the big spike from 66-73 where it was over 50k every year might just indicate a sudden wave of young baby boomers getting licensed, mandatory belts installed in cars was federal in 1968, and of course the states all trickled in in the 80's, there's no identifiable drop correlated to that, though I think it has to be a factor. Law is of limited use on teens and young adults, out big accident causers, so I think it took a generation to expect that to work well. Certainly my own anecdotal evidence says seat belts are worn increasingly regularly and drivers are much more likely to demand passengers buckle up. There's a drop, but not in comparison to preceding and following years, there's a long steady drop in per capita and per mile driven that whole way. I'm sure the laws did help though, but there's a lot of variables in here and I'd also guess that if tomorrow SCOTUS said seat belt laws were unconstitutional (not saying they should) it would have minimal impact on their use.



There's really no evidence federal legislation was necessary, I'd also bet a discount to manufacturers for installing them or a gov't award to the manufacturer who made 'this years safest vehicle' would be as effective or more so. A lot of them would drool for the opportunity to say 'Uncle Sam said it's the safest vehicle on the road'. Again, I am not someone who objects to laws of that sort or hanging fire exit signs in buildings, I'm a republican not a full blown libertarian precisely because I believe sometimes it is necessary or advantageous for the gov't to stick its fingers in the pie, but I think you're over-crediting the effect of regulation on a civilian populace and ignoring that for manufacturers a lot of times a carrot works better, if for no better reason then they respond with enthusiasm and creativity instead of bringing in the lawyers and getting resentful.




Yes, 9 out of 10 spree killers have stopped to say, "Hey, maybe I should use a short magazine, 20 first-degree murders is enough time in jail without adding anything on."



Subjective view, if someone wants me dead my geographic location isn't too meaningful. Most bullets are shot to make the other guy keep his head down to give you time to move, get reinforcements, etc. If I've ammo to burn and a good field of fire and someone's threatening my life I'm going to burn a shot every couple of seconds, even when it's a low probability shot, just to keep him nervous and disrupt his shooting at me and give the cops more time to show up. War zone doesn't change that, modern warfare is genuinely single digit numbers when firefights break out, a lot closer to police or civilian self-defense situations then back in the day, but you can still chew through ammo real damn quick, even on single shot because you'll be trying to get the other guy to duck, flinch, make mistakes, not hear the calvary coming or be able to formulate a plan to deal with them, etc.

And, not to be offensive, but either you're just assuming or you've been listening to people who make grand proclamations of opinion as fact, Lord knows there is no shortage of those one every side of every issue. There's no logical reason why a soldier needs more ammo in an engagement then a civilian. There's also no denying that a 20 round mag and a 10 round mag both of good construction give a better edge to the guy with a 20, and I think people who obey the law should have maximum advantage considering the people we're worried about generally don't obey the law.



Just got done saying it isn't true, so no





Mandatory isn't better, if for no better reason than you won't likely get it, so work with what is possible and focus on strongly encouraged voluntary options. Personally I think you and the left as a whole are so hostile to guns that you seek stick options over carrots in spite of normally being huge supporters of carrot-learning on virtually everything else. If I suggested a voluntary free program run by the IRS explaining taxes you'd never talk about 'mandatory is better'. The government runs, at all levels, huge numbers of training programs, some very effective, and/or advisory ones like Agri Extension and Master Gardener, keeps the cost low, convinces all of the ready value, and doesn't have to make it mandatory. Seeking a mandatory option when you know it will meet howls and screams before seriously trying voluntary options just emphasizes the hostility at guns and gun supporters and makes a lot of us think you're not of clear head, and this thread like many other sis full of people swinging insults about that were not sufficiently warranted so it's easy for me to believe.

Also you totally skipped concealed or early education which is what irked me.




Self-defense, defense of others or property are the only uses of guns that mean much to me. Give a damn about hunting specifically, and those games are at best fun, athletic ways for people to get more comfortable and trained with guns. But approving of paintball as a sport and method of training with guns is still 'self-defense', because the game aids, as does hunting, in being comfortable with a weapon. I do not understand why this point is confusing to you. Their principle purpose is for killing things, no more worthy cause then defense, certainly offense or robbery isn't, and I don't think hunting is some natural human right that if banned (I'd oppose that) would diminish us or endanger us. One sees damned little need for a gun for any other purpose but defense of self, others, property.



I don't own one, don't hunt, live in a safe area right by a police station and our principal speed trap, and I'd end up building a collection which gets expensive. Way too many friends with arsenals and bunkers, way too much my cup of tea and I'm competitive, open that door and I'd end up burning a fortune trying to one up theirs.





Why not avoid a battle with the NRA and start with education, if they're right spree killings and armed robberies will drop or at least see a serious drop in success rates. If they're wrong, they lose their main card. To me its common sense, find an education route they think works well and give them a chance to prove it. To do otherwise implies serious concern they will turn out to be right.