• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NY Proposal to Screw Gun Owner's a Little Bit Further

Sabretooth said:
You're missing the point.

Guns are not cheap and neither is centerfire ammunition. But let's look at this another way....

You have a farmer in central NY who is skirting by. He hunts deer and other wild game as a cost effective way to put food on the table. Now you want this gentleman to pay $1,200 to $12,000 dollars a year just to use his right?

Or myself for example. I own guns for deer hunting and target shooting. I bought the guns, paid for the safety classes, paid for the ammo, paid for the yearly hunting license...but those are all one time costs. Now I have to pay an additional $1,200 to $12,000 dollars a year just to use my right?

I don't know about you, but my budget is pretty tight already. Paying another $100+ a month to enjoy a sport I only partake in a handful of times per year is not a perk I can afford. So you've essentially taxed me out of gun ownership.

So, yes, I can't afford to exercise my 2A right. And, please do explain to me how this curbs gun violence? Exactly how many illegal gun owners plan to carry insurance?

I seriously can't believe I have to explain this.

It's stupid and it's only going to make guns available to the well-off, rich, or criminal.
Click to expand...

That seems high. Million dollar umbrella on home owners or renters is a few hundred a year. Having umbrella extend to this would be suprising if it was more than 100 per year.
 
Upchurch said:
But you can require car owners to carry insurance regardless of whether or not they've ever harmed someone with their car.
Click to expand...
Is it the law that all car owners have insurance? Or registration? Or even a driver's license? My understanding is that these are only required if you want to operate your vehicle on a public road. Are they also required if the vehicles are only operated on private property? All of my shooting is on private property.
 
Ziggurat said:
The 2nd amendment. Duh!
Click to expand...

So, hypothetically, you have the right to own a $100 gun even if you only have $50 because of the Second Amendment? That's what Sabretooth is arguing here. Not that you have the right to own guns at all, but whether you have the right to own guns you cannot afford, or can no longer afford.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So we need programs to put guns in the hands of welfare recipients?

I have never seen guns subsidized for low income people.
Click to expand...

Upchurch said:
Maybe you missed my point?

The Second Amendment says nothing about prohibiting a barrier to entry. If it did, firearms would have to be free.

Moreover, there are already restrictions placed on the Second Amendment for those citizens who have not broken the law. We are not, for example, allowed to carry firearms into the local Post Office or city hall.
Click to expand...

Enough with the strawmen. I have never advocated giving away free arms to welfare folks.

NY is imposing new costs as a roundabout way of removing firearms from the law abiding public...period.

The "gun problem" in NY is driven by criminals. There is no arguing that point. So, tell me, how does forcing one million policies on the law-abiding owners address any of the "gun problem" in NY State?
 
Sabretooth said:
Do they also require you to carry one million dollars worth of insurance?
Click to expand...

I do. Not sure exactly what the lowest max you can have is in ny. But it is fairly typical to have a 1-2 million umbrella. For two cars and renters with umbrella I pay 2100 or so. Guns shouldn't add much.
 
BenBurch said:
No, I am guessing that they will not.

And then we have a status crime we can use to jail them and confiscate their guns.

Will make taking gang members off the street much easier.
Click to expand...

What world are you living in?

The police and feds already can't control the gang problem in the USA. What in gawds name makes you think this new policy makes it any better?
 
Sabretooth said:
A $10 premium on a $1,000,000 policy?

Show me where. I'll buy it right now.
Click to expand...

I showed you the math, what did I get wrong?

That's a rhetorical question, OK, I didn't include injuries and property damage.

From Wiki: There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[6]

So that's another 100,000 claims, of course they are injury and not death claims, so you are even less likely to hit limits. So the cost may actually approach $100 per gun per year, but would be distributed based on risk so that a collector with safe storage for their guns would still likely get coverage for far less.

I have no idea how to estimate property damage caused by guns but when I started looking I found this article where the insurance lobby says it does not want this business:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...ist-push-to-make-gun-owners-get-coverage.html

At the end the re-insurer makes a good point that insurance can influence the way people store their guns. I think that is important.
 
Sabretooth said:
Enough with the strawmen. I have never advocated giving away free arms to welfare folks.
Click to expand...
You advocated that income shouldn't be a factor. Subsidized guns are the only way around that. Or it is just a really bad argument you don't believe in.
 
Sabretooth said:
Based on various estimates I see online, anywhere from $100 to $1,000 per month. It depends on how dangerous the item is that you are insuring against.

ETA: I'm guessing the 2A is only a "right" if you can afford it.
Click to expand...

Well, guns aren't free are they? It's always been about who can afford it.

Incredible to think private insurance companies might consider certain weapons to be more dangerous than others. Better hope they don't apply the same metric to car insurance..... oh wait! ;)

Why should it be cheap to own a weapon? At the end of the day, the insurance just like automotive insurance is actually there to protect the gun owner after all if you commit harm against someone and get sued you could end up losing everything you own.

And, if you don't own anything, then you surely can't afford to own a gun.
 
Upchurch said:
Which part of the Constitution says you have the right to own a gun regardless of the cost?
Click to expand...
The 2nd Amendment says you have the right to own a gun.

You may well ask which part of the Constitution gives you the right to vote regardless of the cost.
 
Ziggurat said:
Sure. But the law being proposed doesn't apply to only some guns. It applies categorically to all guns. A law which required insurance for fully automatic weapons would pass constitutional requirements. This... doesn't.
Click to expand...

Why? Most gun damage is not done by automatic weapons, so such an insurance policy would be largely ineffective for the stated purpose.
 
Sabretooth said:
What world are you living in?

The police and feds already can't control the gang problem in the USA. What in gawds name makes you think this new policy makes it any better?
Click to expand...

Because right now you cannot just frisk a gang banger and arrest him for being a 'banger. Once a gun is an instant arrest warrant, all you need to do is stop and frisk. They ALL carry.
 
Upchurch said:
So, hypothetically, you have the right to own a $100 gun even if you only have $50 because of the Second Amendment?
Click to expand...

Of course you do. Why is that a confusing concept for you? Why is that a problem? Honestly, I can't really tell exactly where you're failing to grasp the obvious, but I suspect part of it comes from the hilighted part.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Agreed. If we take gun owners at their word that 99.999% of guns cause no damage then this should be some pretty cheap insurance for most people.
Click to expand...
No such thing as cheap insurance when there's $1 milllion in coverage.

Chicago requires $1 million in insurance to have a dumpster on the street (pure coincidence, I'm sure, that Daley's brother had the only insurance company that offered such insurance...). It costs $50 every 3 days.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Why? Most gun damage is not done by automatic weapons, so such an insurance policy would be largely ineffective for the stated purpose.
Click to expand...

I'm not addressing the efficacy of the law for any particular purpose, I'm addressing the constitutionality of the law. An effective law can still be unconstitutional, and an ineffective law can likewise be constitutional.
 
ponderingturtle said:
You advocated that income shouldn't be a factor. Subsidized guns are the only way around that.
Click to expand...

A factor for what? For the direct effects of the law? Damned straight it shouldn't be. For effects outside of the law itself? That's never going to be true. There's a fundamental difference between costs imposed by purely private transactions and costs mandated by the government. Prohibiting the latter doesn't mean we must actively remove the former. Did you really not understand that distinction?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom