Not really. The first one about the anti-drunk driving is pretty similar to what many pro-gun people say: "banning guns won't stop murders". And just answering that the point is reduction seems reasonable in this case.
The point is to make obvious non controversial examples to get the idea across.
These examples are _such_ straw arguments. lol. Might as well prefix them with, "so this one time a guy in the subway / buddy of mine in the bar / guy on the radio says..." because at least that'd provide context toward a bit of face-validity.
And first, never reply with a logical fallacy PSA to someone who actually says this. It's a waste of time. Better to understand that logically-stunted sentence as permission to explore other, less-logic-focused ways of influencing them.
So many people who talk like this are not reasoning with logic. The logic is a foil for their emotion.
They are stressed out about things they can't control (seat belt laws for example), terrified of their own future (to say nothing of the world's), and therefore unsuited to this more formal debate & logic approach.
Better to say--"hey. I care about you buddy. I don't care if you think it's a secret plot by the lizard people, I hope you'll wear that seatbelt and not end up looking like one of those crash test dummies when a zombie driver crosses into your lane."
You expose the emotion in the room, you make a caricature of the fear, and you refer back to hard evidence in a visceral way.
But really. Still a straw man. I wish the examples themselves could be better characterized: Is this in a university class setting? A university bar with Ph.D. candidates? Or a bar full of military conscripts at the end of a hard day? Or some mommy blog that you can't help but comment on, as a Ph.D.??
If you know and can acknowledge _any_ of these things you will probably be far better prepared than by knowing about logical fallacies.