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

[uk_dave]

It means more than that, really. Heller defines it as weapons in common usage. So during the 18th century it would have included swords. Today it could be argued that it also includes things like pepper spray and tasers.

So if swords are considered to no longer be in common use, they aren't covered by the 2A?

Or can things only be added, not removed?

Does 'use' mean used in anger? Otherwise that would raise a bit of a tricky question regarding nuclear weapons, given that there are still massive stockpiles of them.

 

[uk_dave]

I'm ashamed that several posters are supportive of this end-around anti-gun trick. Would you be supportive if abortion clinics were forced to purchase a billion dollar insurance in case they were bombed? How about libel insurance before being permitted to speak in public? Even better, what if 'subversive groups who have caused trouble in the past', let's say...JREF, had to carry billion dollar insurance in case any of the dangerous ideas and techniques discussed here be used to cause damage?

This is even without the clear historic example of the poll tax.

Really, this is simply an anti-gun measure. It's not a public safety or personal responsibility measure.

Do you apply the same reasoning to car insurance?

 

[tyr_13]

Do you apply the same reasoning to car insurance?

You don't have to own car insurance.

To drive it on public roads you do.

Cars aren't a right, but even so you don't have to have insurance to own one.

 

[tyr_13]

It's an end around on Constitutional protections. If one thinks weapon ownership shouldn't be a right, then change that. This method is no better than anti-abortion tricks.

 

[Newtons Bit]

So if swords are considered to no longer be in common use, they aren't covered by the 2A?

Or can things only be added, not removed?

Does 'use' mean used in anger? Otherwise that would raise a bit of a tricky question regarding nuclear weapons, given that there are still massive stockpiles of them.

IANAL, but I would say swords are no longer covered as they're not commonly used as weapons today.

Nuclear weapons aren't in common usage. They're owned by a few nations and that's it. The average infantryman, police officer, or person who wants self-defense does not use them.

 

[Newtons Bit]

It's an end around on Constitutional protections. If one thinks weapon ownership shouldn't be a right, then change that. This method is no better than anti-abortion tricks.

Or poll-taxes to lower the poor voter turnout.

 

[uk_dave]

It's an end around on Constitutional protections. If one thinks weapon ownership shouldn't be a right, then change that. This method is no better than anti-abortion tricks.

Not really. Your abortion clinic example really doesn't work.

The clinic is going to have to have buildings insurance, otherwise they would suffer a massive loss if the building was damaged beyond repair.

An insurer is going to look at the potential loss and the risk.
I've no doubt abortion clinics have very high premiums and probably have many countermeasures (secure entrances; remote letter boxes; screens over windows; fire suppression systems) to try to keep those premiums affordable.

No they don't have a government mandated insured amount, because for the most part they are insuring property which is easily valued.

But guns and cars have an impact upon people and people sue.

So long as no third party can come into contact with your gun or car then insurance is going to be superfluous and if still required will likely be a nominal sum, just to keep the paperwork in order.

But if you could cause death or injury through your ownership of a gun or a car then you could be sued to cover the costs to a third party. The amount of cover you hold should reflect the possible settlement you might make, otherwise you risk losing every asset you own or if you own nothing then the third party cannot be compensated. That's not fair on them, so insurance is a practical alternative to you losing everything and them failing to pay their medical bills.

Weapons are a right in the US, so long as you (or someone) can afford them and afford to take responsibility for them.

And as I was trying to get across earlier, the rights bestowed by the 2A do not apply in certain circumstances (mental health, criminal record, age etc etc) so it's already not a universal right; weapons aren't handed out free of charge (along with the ammo) by the government to the entire populace regardless of age, mental health or criminal record.

Weapons are allowed if you meet certain criteria and can afford them.

 

[tyr_13]

Not really. Your abortion clinic example really doesn't work.

The clinic is going to have to have buildings insurance, otherwise they would suffer a massive loss if the building was damaged beyond repair.

An insurer is going to look at the potential loss and the risk.
I've no doubt abortion clinics have very high premiums and probably have many countermeasures (secure entrances; remote letter boxes; screens over windows; fire suppression systems) to try to keep those premiums affordable.

No they don't have a government mandated insured amount, because for the most part they are insuring property which is easily valued.
But guns and cars have an impact upon people and people sue.

So long as no third party can come into contact with your gun or car then insurance is going to be superfluous and if still required will likely be a nominal sum, just to keep the paperwork in order.

But if you could cause death or injury through your ownership of a gun or a car then you could be sued to cover the costs to a third party. The amount of cover you hold should reflect the possible settlement you might make, otherwise you risk losing every asset you own or if you own nothing then the third party cannot be compensated. That's not fair on them, so insurance is a practical alternative to you losing everything and them failing to pay their medical bills.

Weapons are a right in the US, so long as you (or someone) can afford them and afford to take responsibility for them.

And as I was trying to get across earlier, the rights bestowed by the 2A do not apply in certain circumstances (mental health, criminal record, age etc etc) so it's already not a universal right; weapons aren't handed out free of charge (along with the ammo) by the government to the entire populace regardless of age, mental health or criminal record.

Weapons are allowed if you meet certain criteria and can afford them.

The highlighted invalidates your entire argument. Nothing is stopping people now from insuring their guns (people do that) and the only thing stopping people from getting 'gun insurance' to insure against their actions with the guns is the absence of offerings for it. The government mandating it would be like the government singling out abortion clinics or churches, or say political activist and saying they need a million (or for organizations billion) dollar insurance that also covers criminal acts.

 

[Nessie]

.......

I hope you don't ever have to give up something you've loved to do since you were a kid because some jackass politico decided to price it out of your budget.

I think your anger should be directed at the jackass gun makers, dealers and owners who have let guns pervade every corner of US society contributing to the high death rates and mass shootings.

I also think that the pro gun side should come out with reasonable gun control themselves before they criticise others for being unreasonable. Unfortunately for the sensible pro gun people the likes of the NRA and politicians have come out with awful suggestions, like arming teachers and making suggesting gun control legislation illegal

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're the one who speculated that this would price illegal gun owners out of the market.

No I didn't. I said if they argument is that it might price high risk people out of gun ownership, that's probably a good thing. I said nothing about illegal gun owners.

Does your insurance cover you if you intentionally or criminally harm someone during your act?

It's liability insurance. If the gun liability insurance in question only covers criminal harms done, the premium should be even lower, right?

So again, how high would that premium have to be for it to put gun ownership out of reach of a middle class family?

How great would the risk have to be for insurers to be unable to offer middle class families affordable policies?

 

[Old man]

Few countries rank higher than the U.S. (10, to be precise) in total firearm related death rate. I doubt any of them have a "much lower" gun-ownership rate than the U.S.

JTJ, your 'list' is only about one third of the total number of countries (it doesn't include Russia, for instance), so ("to be precise"), if the list is random, there should be about 30, not 10, countries with a higher firearm related death rate.

 

[uk_dave]

The highlighted invalidates your entire argument. Nothing is stopping people now from insuring their guns (people do that) and the only thing stopping people from getting 'gun insurance' to insure against their actions with the guns is the absence of offerings for it. The government mandating it would be like the government singling out abortion clinics or churches, or say political activist and saying they need a million (or for organizations billion) dollar insurance that also covers criminal acts.

Not really, no.

How many people do you think would happily drive their cars on public roads without any third party insurance unless it was mandatory?

You seem to miss the point.

Cars and guns cause verifiable injury to third parties. Abortion clinics, churches etc do not, though I'm sure they have to carry insurance to cover not only their buildings but also work related injuries to their workforce.

The point is the insurance coverage is based upon your ability to compensate a third party if your irresponsible gun ownership causes harm. If you're responsible then the risks are less and your premiums are less.

The injury caused could result in very high medical bills.

A building has a very easily calculated demolition and rebuild cost which, along with the contents, would form the settlement of a claim if a church or clinic was destroyed. To mandate a higher amount than could possibly be required would be unjustifiable.

ETA: Effectively, all the building owner wants to know is 'does the building insurance cover me to replace the building if it is destroyed?'

All the citizen should need to know is 'does the gun owners insurance cover me if their weapon causes me harm?'

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's an end around on Constitutional protections. If one thinks weapon ownership shouldn't be a right, then change that.

Your position assumes that the motivation for this law is to prevent gun ownership.

 

[Cylinder]

I also think that the pro gun side should come out with reasonable gun control themselves before they criticise others for being unreasonable. Unfortunately for the sensible pro gun people the likes of the NRA and politicians have come out with awful suggestions, like arming teachers and making suggesting gun control legislation illegal

One thing the current gun control debate has been successful at is making the NRA less popular among gun owners. A year ago they were getting out membership packets in two weeks. Now it is taking two months.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Actually, you just shot yourself in the foot with that comparison. If you didn't know, or didn't suspect he was under 21, you'd be good. Since you're not a retailer of alcohol, you've got no duty to ID that person, or inquire of their age. You just need to think they're over 21.

Nope. You would be prosecuted on those facts because there is no reason a person would rather buy beer from you outside a store rather than inside the store. Except that they can't legally buy in the store. They ran this exact sting when I was underage and it worked to dry up that source of beer. Straw buyers and retailers were both targeted.

With the gun you could argue each is unique or some such BS, but the fact remains you won't be prosecuted.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

JTJ, your 'list' is only about one third of the total number of countries (it doesn't include Russia, for instance), so ("to be precise"), if the list is random, there should be about 30, not 10, countries with a higher firearm related death rate.

Why is list in scare quotes? It's not my list. It's a Wikipedia list.

Do you have evidence to support your claim that there are 30 countries with higher firearm related death rates than the U.S.?

And given that there are close to 200 countries, does even 30 constitute "many"? (This would again be assuming that all of them have "much lower" gun ownership rates than the U.S. and taking your word for it that there are 30 with higher gun death rates.)

 

[Upchurch]

But the risk is low, yes?

I've seen his show. He nearly died on stage!

 

[Dr. Keith]

Fourth, the proposed law doesn't actually place any requirements on private sales of guns. So even to the extent that we decide that we should make it harder for felons to buy guns, the proposed law simply doesn't do that at all.

I agree that the proposed law is not the best approach. The fact remains that it should be harder to get illegal beer than it is to get illegal guns. Currently it is not.

 

[Mudcat]

I hope you don't ever have to give up something you've loved to do since you were a kid because some jackass politico decided to price it out of your budget.

Your arguments are getting more emotional and ridiculous as this thread progresses.

There are people out there who enjoy driving since childhood, but despite already existing expenses such as tags, licenses, maintenance, fuel, and insurance driving is still affordable.

You have no valid objections, responsible gun owners should insure their guns.

 

[uk_dave]

You have no valid objections, responsible gun owners should insure their guns.

Or, more precisely, themselves.