• 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

WildCat said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, are you saying that every dumpster in Chicago is paying $5,900 a year in insurance and nobody else has offered such policies?

If so I may need to open a new business in Chicago . . .
 
BenBurch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Um...wut?

A gun is already an instant arrest...but the cops have to, ya know, see the gun first. How does the insurance law make it more illegal?
 
DavidJames said:
Here's an idea, find a way to boost your self esteem that doesn't include tools used to kill innocent people.
Click to expand...
I take then your position is that firearms can only be used to kill innocent people and the sole purpose of owning a firearm is to boost one's ego.
Did I get that right?

P.S. This is where the leftist handbook says you should begin to waffle with a response such as, "Well, they're mostly used to kill innocent people and are mostly used to boost one's ego.
 
BenBurch said:
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.
Click to expand...

AFAIK, carrying without a permit (or even worse, with a criminal history) will already get you arrested. Even in the "gun friendly" states. If that is what you want the laws to do, then you should be happy - we are already there!
 
Sabretooth said:
For general coverage, yes. But I have a feeling that agents won't be so quick to be cheap when it comes to insuring firearms.
Click to expand...

General coverage would be MORE EXPENSIVE than only covering firearms because general coverage typically includes firearms. Because it is general. And every other way someone could be injured on the premises, from the dreaded swimming pool to falling down the icy steps.

You don't deal with insurance much, do you?
 
Giz said:
AFAIK, carrying without a permit (or even worse, with a criminal history) will already get you arrested. Even in the "gun friendly" states. If that is what you want the laws to do, then you should be happy - we are already there!
Click to expand...

Agreed. That is a red herring.

But how is that guy going to get a gun if every responsible gun owner risks losing their insurance by providing such a person a gun?
 
Ziggurat said:
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?
Click to expand...

So all that registration and sales tax on private transfers of cars is illegal?
 
Metullus said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. I imagine that varies from state to state and situation to situation. I know you often have to have a fishing or hunting license even if you are hunting/fishing on private property.

A quick google search says that, for the most part, any vehicle that is registered, used or unused, must carry liability insurance. I can't find anything that addresses an in-use vehicle used exclusively on private property. I did find some information concerning farm equipment traveling on public roads, but that fits into a different classification. So, I don't know.
 
Dr. Keith said:
General coverage would be MORE EXPENSIVE than only covering firearms because general coverage typically includes firearms. Because it is general. And every other way someone could be injured on the premises, from the dreaded swimming pool to falling down the icy steps.

You don't deal with insurance much, do you?
Click to expand...

No, I don't.

Here's a question: If I already have homeowners insurance that covers injury, doesn't that technically cover my guns as well?
 
BenBurch said:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth View Post
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.
Click to expand...
A hand gun IS "an instant arrest warrant" for anyone without a NYS pistol permit in NY.

ETA:Beaten out by Sabretooth!
 
Last edited:
Sabretooth said:
Rights and Privileges are two completely different things.
Click to expand...

Owning things is a privilige as long as it isn't a gun? I thought ownership and property was typically viewed as a right.

So there are no property rights now only property privileges?

The important point is I never addressed driving the car just owning it.
 
Now that's something that could be taken seriously. It's directed straight at the people who are responsible for paying the 'tax'. And the cost of insurance is always directly proportion to the risk factor. If a responsible gun owner is very unlikely to cause a million dollars damage with his gun then his insurance cost will be correspondingly low. Rates would need to begin with an estimate and then they would be adjusted according to experience. Just like car insurance where the potential to cause millions of dollars in damage or be held liable for life and limb mayhem that is caused by a car, so too with guns.
 
Sabretooth said:
No, I don't.
Click to expand...

You are quite lucky. It is a shady business and bastardized area of the law.

Here's a question: If I already have homeowners insurance that covers injury, doesn't that technically cover my guns as well?
Click to expand...

It generally covers accidental injuries on your property. It doesn't cover injuries off your property or criminal acts. There may be coverage for negligent acts, but grossly negligent acts may be excluded. It really depends.

That is the point of the article I linked to. The insurance companies can't offer insurance for illegal acts and they don't want to insure grossly negligent acts as they think the insurance would promote such actions by protecting the owners other assets. (Imagine Ted Nugent letting some drunk guy in a public setting borrow his gun and the drunk guy shoots an innocent bystander. Now Ted has insurance to cover his substantial assets and is not on the hook himself. Definitely a moral hazard that needs to be considered. The flip side is that Ted is such a notorious shooter who has made public threats, even if jokingly, so his rates may be somewhat higher. Also, he would need more than $1M in coverage to cover his assets. So Ted would likley pay a lot more than me or you. )

A reinsurer is quoted as saying that insurance may be a good way to encourage safe storage fo firearms. Safe storage means lower rates, inadequate storage means higher rates. I think the same can be achieved through other means, but this does have some merit.
 
Last edited:
Sabretooth said:
So you won't mind buying voters insurance and licensing?
Click to expand...

Sure ABSOLUTELY, As soon as you can provide evidence that LIKE gun ownership, voting significantly increases the risk of severe injury and death by magnitudes and creates a much higher risk to society. Or lets just let the insurance companies use their actuary tables and risk assesment skills to determine respective required coverage.


And while we're at it let's stop the NRA, who have spent millions in bribe money to congresscritters for preventing actaul studies done to determine the safety and benefits or lack there of of gun ownership.

Or lets have the NRA spend a few mollions dollars advocating for modern technology that would make guns safer - like fingerprint triggers/locks or all kinds of technology that I can think of that would easily do away with kids finding your gun tucked under your pillow or a thief getting a hold of it and killing themselves or others.


But OH NO, as usual gun nut 2a freaks just want to have everything their way, demonstrating once again that there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner - just children who want their cake and eat it too.
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are cherry-picking a single word and ignoring the rest.

Your right to own a type of thing does not give you the right to own something at the expense of another person's property rights, for example. You do not have the right to purchase a $100 gun for $50, if the current owner does not wish to sell it to you for $50 (and if they did, it would be a $50 gun). Just because you have the right to own a gun does not mean you have a right to own a gun you cannot afford.

The point is, the Second Amendment does not define an absolute right. There are real world and pragmatic restrictions on any right. Now maybe this insurance thing is meant solely as way to restrict gun ownership by the general public, maybe it is meant to offset some of the financial burden of firearm violence. However, the argument by the OP that it violates the Second Amendment because it costs too much is not really a valid argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom