I'm neither for or against it at this point... I haven't seen enough information to decide.
Anyhow, on a different but related topic, let me tell you a little story.
Once, many years ago, I lived in a college dorm. I had posters on my door. Every weekend drunken idiots would tear them down. There was no rhyme or reason to it, they weren't offensive or anything, they certainly weren't political or disagreeable. Upon discussion, with my friends the next day, my friends or strangers that pulled them down had no real reason for doing it... but they were drunk.
So, being the sneaky devil that I was, I moved the posters low enough that you'd have to bend over to get a grip and yank them off my door.
Low and behold, no more poster vandalism. This was a strange outcome and gave me some insight into the behavior of people, in general.
People don't always plan things. People don't always have reasons for doing things. Sometimes, when their inhibitions are lowered, they will just do something. The easier it is to do something when they are in this state, the more likely it is that they will.
Simply by making it a tiny bit inconvenient to grab my poster, these drunken sots couldn't be bothered to do so anymore. This is a subtle and powerful strategy that can be applied in very many ways.
Anyhow, the point of the story is that during cases of domestic abuse tempers are flaring. People aren't purposely in a situation where they want to kill somebody, but they grab for something their mind perceives as a weapon.
If the implement they grab was simply a little less deadly, they might cause less harm with it. They may suddenly realize their attack is way out of proportion BEFORE mortally wounding their victim.
The point of the original discussion item was not to stop people from committing planned crimes or to remove all possible weapons from people. It was to blunt the damage caused during spur of the moment violece within the home.
Now, of course the seat belt issue is a different animal. However, the point I was raising is that I do allow the government to impact my life -- even for only purely monetary reasons. In this instance, if benefit to society (particularly women and children) was proven, I might decide to allow the government to impact my life in this way.
Again, I've seen no real numbers or other factors that would convince me that this is the case, but it is the height that I am raising the bar before being willing to consider it seriously.
What is your level? Or, do you honestly feel it represents some slippery slope attempt to confiscate all kitchenware and have us drinking every meal from soft plastic cups?