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

[Dr. Keith]

I've shown world-wide gun ownership rates.

I've shown world-wide suicide rates.

I've shown world-wide homicide rates.

There is no correlation whatsoever.

Many nations that have lower gun ownership rates have higher rates of murder and suicide. No correlation can be drawn.

Sorry bro, but the world-wide data simply doesn't support your argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_rates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

Unless you have some evidence that the data I have presented is wrong, this argument is over.

It has been pointed out that among similar countries, let's say established democracies not currently hosting wars, there is a very strong correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates. In fact, the US stands out like a third world sore thumb.

But please continue to compare us to the second and third world as if having a lower rate of homicide than Belarus and Mexico is something to be proud of. It is almost as if you have no pride in your country.

 

[AlBell]

...

I would further argue that looking at international numbers isn't the correct approach to the question of whether gun ownership in the U.S. correlates with greater risk of gun violence. There are far too many confounding factors.

As you ignore confounding factors in the study you like that seems to link gun ownership with higher homicide rates.

 

[AcesHigh]

You can doubt all you want, but you're actually wrong. Let's go through those 10.

Country        gun death rate      Gun ownership rate     
Jamaica        47.44               8.1
Honduras       46.70               6.2
El Salvador    41.11               5.8
Guatemala      38.52               13.1
Swaziland      37.16               6.4
Brazil         19.02               8.0
South Africa   18.5                12.7
Colombia       11.10               5.9
Mexico         11.07               15.0
Panama         10.92               21.7
United States  10.2                88.8

So basically, they all have much lower gun ownership rates than the US. And there doesn't appear to be any positive correlation within that list between gun death rates and gun ownership rates either.

1 - all those countries are MUCH poorer than the US, and with even higher unequality rates

2 - those are legal gun ownership rates. Rates for Brazil are MUCH HIGHER when you take into account illegal ownership. And no, I am not talking about illegal guns in the hands of druglords or robbers... but in the hands of people who have a fight with their neighbour and in their rage decide to put a bullet in him.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't buy the argument that requiring liability insurance is intended to price middle class families out of the ability to own guns.

This law doesn't need to make gun ownership literally unaffordable. It just needs to make it more expensive in order to dissuade people from owning a gun. And it will. But the people it will primarily dissuade are poorer and law abiding.

The risk of a claim from responsible gun owners is fairly small, right? I think the insurers would be motivated to find out who are the responsible gun owners and offer them coverage with low premiums. Show the insurance agent your gun safe, and you'll probably get quite a deal.

Keep a loaded handgun in a dresser drawer in a house with children or even troubled adults where there is a history of police calls for domestic disturbances. . .no discounted premiums.

Your discount requirement (a safe) will also raise the cost of gun ownership, so that hardly negates the problem. Furthermore, insurance companies have absolutely no way of knowing where you keep your gun. They can know if you own a safe, but if owning a safe gets you a discount, then people who won't use one will still get one but just not use it, and the correlation which currently exists between safety and gun safe ownership will be undermined, along with the discount premium.

If the claim is that people who are high risk gun owners (people with criminal records, records of mental illness, etc.) are going to be priced out of gun ownership, then I would say that's probably a good thing.

The truly high risk gun owners won't be priced out at all. They simply won't pay.

 

[AlBell]

I suspect it will price 'irresponsible' gun owners out of the market because they will be deemed by the private insurance companies, via the mechanism of the free market, to be a high risk.

Why should a high risk gun owner pay the same as a responsible gun owner?

...

Oh it's a harsh world out there when you have responsibilities.

Do you AGs have some belief drug dealers, armed robbers, etc are going to worry about an insurance requirement?

Of course not. You want to ensure only the wealthy own guns.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

I suspect you meant that the other way around.

But I'm still not convinced that this is even true, in any meaningful way. We restrict access to bear for minors. We restrict access to firearms for minors as well. Is it really easier for a minor to get a gun than for a minor to get beer? I doubt it. The ease with which a felon can obtain a gun has no comparison to beer, because felons aren't prohibited from getting beer. I would like it to be harder for felons to get guns than it currently is, but the beer comparison just doesn't make sense. And the proposed law is not only not the best approach, it is not any form of approach at all to that problem.

 

[uk_dave]

Do you AGs have some belief drug dealers, armed robbers, etc are going to worry about an insurance requirement?

Of course not. You want to ensure only the wealthy own guns.

Nah, funny thing is, I see a situation where drug dealers, armed robbers etc are benefiting from the fact that legal gun owners aren't penalised if they don't take their responsibilities seriously.

I see no reason why having third party liability insurance should be financially prohibitive unless the private sector insurance company deems you to be at a high risk of having a claim made against you.

Just like all types of insurance.

Maybe the NRA should start it's own insurance service to comply with the mandatory coverage. They could sell it cheap, because obviously all of their members are responsible gun owners and they'll never have to pay out on a claim!

That's what will happen, isn't it?

 

[Nessie]

Forget the lack of correlation between number of guns and gun deaths. The causal link is guns with unsuitable people and deaths. The USA does little that is effective to stop unsuitable people from getting hold of guns.

 

[Ziggurat]

1 - all those countries are MUCH poorer than the US, and with even higher unequality rates

Quite so. In other words, factors other than gun ownership matter a lot more in terms of violence.

2 - those are legal gun ownership rates.

No they aren't.

 

[uk_dave]

Quite so. In other words, factors other than gun ownership matter a lot more in terms of violence.

So, if you compare the US with a bunch of poor countries which have guns within their society, the US looks great.

But if you compare the US with a bunch of rich countries which don't have guns in their society, it looks like crap.

Fair summary?

 

[Dr. Keith]

I suspect you meant that the other way around.

Maybe it was the easy access to beer . . . even this early in the day.

I would like it to be harder for felons to get guns than it currently is, but the beer comparison just doesn't make sense.

Since we agree on the first part I don't really care about the second.

And the proposed law is not only not the best approach, it is not any form of approach at all to that problem.

Yeah, I agree. I once thought such an approach could have a positive effect, but I don't think it would be nearly as effective as simply registering all guns and gun transactions. I still don't get why responsible gun owners have a problem with registration, but that would be a different thread.

 

[Sabretooth]

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

Please. Ridiculous because something I enjoy can be potentially taken away because someone is intentionally making my right cost prohibitive?

Of course it's emotional, as I hope you would be in the same predicament. But ridiculous? I'm actually offended that you had the nerve to type that.

<snipped the plea about driving a car>

Driving a car is not a right, it is a privilege.

You know what people do who can't afford insurance for their car? They don't insure them. If they get caught, they pay a fine (or not).

If I don't get insurance on my guns, they take them away.

JFHC...why the hell do the AG people put up a bunch of stink about PG's using cars as a comparison, but then do the same *********** thing when they think it suits their argument?

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

Some do. But this isn't theft or damage insurance...it reads:

ONE MILLION DOLLARS SPECIFICALLY COVERING ANY DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ANY NEGLIGENT OR WILLFUL ACTS INVOLVING THE USE OF SUCH FIREARM WHILE IT IS OWNED BY SUCH PERSON.

I'd be willing to bet that current gun owners with such insurance number in the single digits...country-wide.

 

[tyr_13]

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?'

So how much insurance should I be required to purchase to buy beer? Or which ideas and speech require insurance because of the danger they might cause? How much should golf club owners pay? People who are large and can more easily harm others? Now the argument of degree and slippery slope comes in, but how about a billion dollar insurance on bars and other places that sell alcohol? Meets your requirements just fine.

And of course the abortion clinic, apart from the arguments that it's murder and causes harm to third parties that way (which I don't believe by the by), being targets for bombings can harm third parties.

And again, it's an end around of Constitutional protections.

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

Because it is. That's why the terms are so absurd and the amount so high. Even if it wasn't, it still has the effect and the government would have to show strong compelling interests just like with other restrictions on Constitutionally protected actions like speech.

How much of an insurance should anti-vaccine advocates be required to buy before they can espouse that, in case someone takes their advice?

 

[Polaris]

Driving a car is not a right, it is a privilege.

You know what people do who can't afford insurance for their car? They don't insure them. If they get caught, they pay a fine (or not).

If I don't get insurance on my guns, they take them away.

In Texas they impound the vehicle if you're caught driving without proof of insurance. I'm sure it's similar in other states now.

 

[tyr_13]

So, if you compare the US with a bunch of poor countries which have guns within their society, the US looks great.

But if you compare the US with a bunch of rich countries which don't have guns in their society, it looks like crap.

Fair summary?

No. If you compare the US to a bunch of rich countries with high levels of gun ownership it still looks worse. There are problems with the levels of violence in the US regardless of the comparison of gun ownership showing that the US can do many, many things to address the problem.

 

[uk_dave]

So how much insurance should I be required to purchase to buy beer?

I assume you believe this is relevant because..... you could hurt someone with a beer bottle?

Or which ideas and speech require insurance because of the danger they might cause?

Erm, none. I suppose you could be sued if you could be proven to have talked someone into taking their own life. Are there any precedents? There certainly are for injuries to third parties from guns. In fact a quick google brings up a number of law firms who appear to specialise in personal injury claims which involve guns.

How much should golf club owners pay?

I'm sure they already do pay for insurance, in case someone gets injured by a ball or someone else swinging the club without looking. Again the insurance is probably mandatory (some form of public liability insurance) and predicated on what a reasonable payout might have to be.

People who are large and can more easily harm others?

I dunno. Seems a bit of a desperate example.

The debate is concerning a device which has one simple aim: to shoot a hard projectile very fast at something it is aimed at, with varying degrees of range and destructive ability. The greater the range and the more powerful the destructive ability then the greater the danger.

People, large and small aren't really designed simply to cause damage to something else.

Now the argument of degree and slippery slope comes in, but how about a billion dollar insurance on bars and other places that sell alcohol? Meets your requirements just fine.

Why the places that sell alcohol? We're not talking about the places that sell guns.

And slippery slope or thin end of the wedge is not always a valid argument for not doing something. If that were the case then to comply fully with the terms of the 2A you would allow all US citizens to own a gun regardless of age, criminal record, mental capacity or even financial status.

But you don't.

And of course the abortion clinic, apart from the arguments that it's murder and causes harm to third parties that way (which I don't believe by the by), being targets for bombings can harm third parties.

And again, it's an end around of Constitutional protections.

But the abortion clinic is not liable for the harm caused to the third party unless they can be shown to have been negligent.

Buildings insurance, public liability insurance, professional indemnity insurance and contents insurance would all most likely be (maybe with the exception of the contents insurance) mandatory requirements of such a business.

Because it is. That's why the terms are so absurd and the amount so high. Even if it wasn't, it still has the effect and the government would have to show strong compelling interests just like with other restrictions on Constitutionally protected actions like speech.

How much of an insurance should anti-vaccine advocates be required to buy before they can espouse that, in case someone takes their advice?

yeah, you know, having a gun and accidentally shooting someone, or allowing someone to have access to it and injure themselves or others, or through negligence allowing it to be easily stolen and end up in criminal hands, is not the same as speech.

 

[AcesHigh]

Quite so. In other words, factors other than gun ownership matter a lot more in terms of violence.

matter TOO, not "matter a lot more".


comparing countries with similar economics results in gun ownership rate having a major impact on violence.

No they aren't.

yeah, right. All those countries have precise statistics about illegal guns that the government DOES NOT KNOWS about... if those statistics include illegal guns, then the statistics are wrong and gun ownerships are probably much larger.

 

[AcesHigh]

I see arguments for gun ownership, but I can´t see any valid argument for automatic guns ownership. You do not need an automatic rifle or an UZI to defend your home.

And in modern times, owning these weapons will be of little use if the King of England or the Illuminatti in the White House decides to take total control of the US again, with modern military weaponry.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I see arguments for gun ownership, but I can´t see any valid argument for automatic guns ownership. You do not need an automatic rifle or an UZI to defend your home.

And in modern times, owning these weapons will be of little use if the King of England or the Illuminatti in the White House decides to take total control of the US again, with modern military weaponry.

Actually, AFAIK, in the US, you have to have a special licence for an automatic weapon.

 

[tyr_13]

I assume you believe this is relevant because..... you could hurt someone with a beer bottle?

Because of all the harm people do to other people while using it or by letting people who aren't allowed to have it use it. The exact argument about guns you're using.

Erm, none. I suppose you could be sued if you could be proven to have talked someone into taking their own life. Are there any precedents? There certainly are for injuries to third parties from guns. In fact a quick google brings up a number of law firms who appear to specialise in personal injury claims which involve guns.

So there is already a mechanism to discourage negligent use huh? There are lawyers who specialize in liable and slander too. So again, third party damage from speech is legally recognized. So what level of insurance do you think everyone should be required to purchase?

I'm sure they already do pay for insurance, in case someone gets injured by a ball or someone else swinging the club without looking. Again the insurance is probably mandatory (some form of public liability insurance) and predicated on what a reasonable payout might have to be.

I dunno. Seems a bit of a desperate example.

No you don't. What insurance do you as a golf club owner pay for? Again, you're conflating insurance that buildings and organizations pay, operational insurance, with ownership insurance. Shooting ranges have insurance too and that doesn't seem to satisfy the call for this insurance.

I used that example specifically because I predicted the objection it would raise, not because it's desperate.

The debate is concerning a device which has one simple aim: to shoot a hard projectile very fast at something it is aimed at, with varying degrees of range and destructive ability. The greater the range and the more powerful the destructive ability then the greater the danger.

People, large and small aren't really designed simply to cause damage to something else.

The genetic fallacy. But fine, how about how much insurance should a martial artist carry? Those techniques were designed to be dangerous too.

Why the places that sell alcohol? We're not talking about the places that sell guns.

You think that's a valid distinction here, but a few paragraphs earlier you argued about how golf club owners already pay insurance through the courses.

And slippery slope or thing end of the wedge is not always a valid argument for not doing something.

I didn't claim otherwise.

If that were the case then to comply fully with the terms of the 2A you would allow all US citizens to own a gun regardless of age, criminal record, mental capacity or even financial status.

But you don't.

Of course not. No right is an absolute. That's not an argument for this proposal.

But the abortion clinic is not liable for the harm caused to the third party unless they can be shown to have been negligent.

But gun owners are?

Buildings insurance, public liability insurance, professional indemnity insurance and contents insurance would all most likely be (maybe with the exception of the contents insurance) mandatory requirements of such a business.

Like homeowner's insurance.

yeah, you know, having a gun and accidentally shooting someone, or allowing someone to have access to it and injure themselves or others, or through negligence allowing it to be easily stolen and end up in criminal hands, is not the same as speech.

Why? Harm and damage are caused by misuse and abuse. The difference is you want to do one but not the other.