I don't disagree that you can work on multiple problems at once. The question is where the line gets drawn. Using your seatbelt analogy, we require seatbelts because they don't fundamentally change what a car is or prevent ordinary people from using one. (FYI: I looked at a 26 chevy last week, they now have it that the seatbelt must be plugged in to be able to put the truck in drive or reverse) But let's take the logic a step further. Cars kill tens of thousands of Americans every year. If reducing deaths is the primary goal, we could mandate speed limiters on every vehicle and cap them at 30 mph. We'd almost certainly save a lot of lives. The reason we don't do that isn't because we don't care about safety. It's because we balance safety against practicality, freedom and the legitimate uses of the thing being regulated. That's the part that often gets skipped in gun debates. Nobody disputes that fewer guns might reduce some firearm deaths. The question is what restrictions are justified, what rights are affected, whether criminals will follow those restrictions and what unintended consequences come with them.
