I was under the impression that using airbags without seatbelts would actually cause injuries, mainly due to passengers being bounced around uncontrollably. In a car crash, the head and neck are flung forward by the collision and then back by the airbag rebound, potentially causing whiplash injuries.

If you're wearing a seatbelt, however, it will keep your body stable while the airbag slows your head's travel forward.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong but the two seem to complement each other quite well.

How about a response about the resulting organized crime [b]with the purpose of skirting the prohibition[/b]?
It didn't so much change the alcohol culture as drive it underground.

Mental note: Always include a unit test for "test subject did not die".

You know, I've thought about this.

Say a regime has a very large standing army. Call it 1% of the population, so a country like the U.S. would have about 3 million armed soldiers.
The population is armed and unhappy.

Your argument is that, since the general population isn't allowed heavier weapons (artillery, automatic rifles, etc.), the army will "win" in an armed conflict.

Do you really think that all 3 million of those soldiers are prepared to fire upon their countrymen?
Do you really think their big guns and tanks and planes will help them control an armed uprising of 50 peasants for each of their trained fighters?

I think if the people are sufficiently dissatisfied to take up arms at all, just having guns in the first place will be a huge boon. The size of the guns isn't quite as important as you'd think when the numbers are on your side.

When it's, uuuuuh, probably not a problem. Probably.

It could hardly be the other way around, could it?