By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) revealed on Fox News that he does not wear a seatbelt while driving in Washington, D.C., due to concerns about carjacking, despite the city’s mandatory seatbelt law. Mullin cited the high rate of car theft in the capital as justification, claiming he needs to be able to “exit in a hurry” if faced with a carjacking. He also praised former President Trump’s deployment of National Guard members and increased control over the Metropolitan Police Department in response to rising crime rates. A violation of the seatbelt ordinance in D.C. carries a $50 fine.
Read the original article here
A Republican senator, facing scrutiny, stated he doesn’t wear a seatbelt while driving in Washington, D.C., citing his fear of being carjacked as the reason. The senator’s logic is that not wearing a seatbelt would enable him to quickly exit the vehicle in the event of an attempted carjacking. It’s a statement that immediately raises eyebrows and questions about the practicality and reasoning behind it.
The very idea of increasing one’s chances of injury in a car accident to potentially evade a carjacking is quite perplexing. Wouldn’t it be more prudent to focus on preventative measures, such as locking doors and being aware of surroundings? And the suggestion that being unbelted makes escape easier seems counterintuitive. Doesn’t leaving the car mean abandoning the car to the carjacker?
The senator’s approach also sparks a debate about the role of fear and perception, particularly in the context of crime and urban environments. It touches on the larger narrative often spun about the supposed dangers of certain areas, and how such narratives can influence personal behavior and policy positions. And it is even more confounding, because the senator is a proponent of “constitutional carry”. Why not use the weapon to prevent the carjacking in the first place?
The argument presented seems to suggest an underlying sentiment of vulnerability and perhaps an exaggerated perception of risk. The senator’s fear might not align with the actual statistical probability of being carjacked in Washington, D.C., where the risk of a traffic accident outweighs the risk of carjacking, meaning a seatbelt is more critical than ever.
This brings up the issue of consistency and how someone can claim to be brave but at the same time be terrified of a situation that, while a possibility, is statistically rare. It’s also worth noting that the senator’s stance could be perceived as an admission of breaking the law multiple times a day, potentially inviting legal consequences. It also comes as a surprise, because this is the same party that usually makes themselves out to be invincible badasses.
The comment suggests that the senator may be exploiting a fear of crime to further a certain political agenda. Creating a sense of danger could be used to garner support for stricter laws or policies. At the same time, the senator’s actions and comments may simply reflect a genuine fear, and it might also be a way to distract the public from other things.
The senator’s statement, if taken seriously, would raise questions about his judgment. Being scared all the time, no matter the reason, has serious implications for how we approach everyday life. It may seem absurd to some. It underscores the impact of fear on political and personal choices.
Ultimately, the senator’s refusal to wear a seatbelt presents a complicated picture of politics, personal safety, and the often-inconsistent narratives people tell themselves and others. It highlights how perceptions of danger can shape everyday actions, the importance of understanding risk, and how fear can be exploited or used as a justification for actions that might otherwise seem irrational.