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

[Polaris]

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.

Why not? First, as NWO Sentryman stated, you do need a Class 3 license for an actual full-auto weapon. Second, the Uzi was designed to be a well-balanced general purpose weapon for close quarters...such as a house.

 

[WildCat]

matter TOO, not "matter a lot more".


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

So if I listed the gun ownership rates of varous Chicago neighborhoods you could tell which ones have the highest gun crime rates based on that data?

 

[monty1]

Us "gungoons" don't like it because it's against our Constitution. My rights should not have a "For Sale" sticker next to them.

Not to mention this will have absolutely no effect on the real cause of the problem...that is, the criminals and lunatics.

You like it, because it theoretically lowers gun ownership...but that's legal gun ownership. It does nothing to curb the amount of illegal guns on the streets.

Just come out and say you hate every American with a gun and be done with it.

Who called you a gungoon? You or me? If the risk with having guns in the hands of legal and responsible gun owners is minimal as claimed by the gungoons then the insurance premium would be very low as well.

If 15,000,000 legally owned guns in N.Y. are each charged $5 then that would bring in revenue of $75,000,000 and surely that would pay for all the mayhem, pain, and suffering those gungoons would inflict on society. Problem solved for the people whose rights have been confiscated because of not being able to live safely for fear of getting shot.

And the side benefits are enormous. Gungoons would become a lot more responsible with their guns and the ones who aren't would have much more expensive insurance.

I could see a change to a lot more safety conscious gun owners who would have lost the 'goon' in them.

 

[uk_dave]

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?

Enough to cover the real harm that can be done.

I have probably mentioned this before, but it bears repeating as it was a real eye opener for me:

I have a family member, a US citizen who was hit by a car while she was a pedestrian.

For various reasons, she didn't have any medical insurance, but it turned out that the owner of the vehicle was insured.

However, the insurance held by the owner had a cap of $15000 for a third party claim. The owner had no assets - no house (it was rental) no stocks, savings, nothing.

The injured girl has $120,000 in medical bills.

Now, using that as an example, let's say some irresponsible gun owner was fooling around and managed to shoot this girl. It was an accident! Maybe he does some jail time. But if he has no assets, how is she going to be compensated?

 

[uk_dave]

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.

But the point is: They Have Insurance!! There is a need, a risk.

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

If the martial artist teaches martial arts they carry insurance, yes?
But the martial art they are adept in cannot be stolen from their house or found in a cupboard by a 10 year old or be used accidentally while cleaning.

Like homeowner's insurance.

I don't know. Does homeowners insurance cover you for third party liability away from the house?

 

[tyr_13]

Enough to cover the real harm that can be done.

I have probably mentioned this before, but it bears repeating as it was a real eye opener for me:

I have a family member, a US citizen who was hit by a car while she was a pedestrian.

For various reasons, she didn't have any medical insurance, but it turned out that the owner of the vehicle was insured.

However, the insurance held by the owner had a cap of $15000 for a third party claim. The owner had no assets - no house (it was rental) no stocks, savings, nothing.

The injured girl has $120,000 in medical bills.

Now, using that as an example, let's say some irresponsible gun owner was fooling around and managed to shoot this girl. It was an accident! Maybe he does some jail time. But if he has no assets, how is she going to be compensated?

The same as with any other negligent injury.

I'm not sure why you thought this would be a good example. Cars, operated on public roads and not a right protected in the Constitution, don't even have the insurance that would be required to own gun and exclude criminal uses where this one does not. So that's an argument in favor of this?

 

[tyr_13]

But the point is: They Have Insurance!! There is a need, a risk.

And yet you don't have to have insurance for the same thing but the business does.

If the martial artist teaches martial arts they carry insurance, yes?
But the martial art they are adept in cannot be stolen from their house or found in a cupboard by a 10 year old or be used accidentally while cleaning.

And? Connect those dots.

I don't know. Does homeowners insurance cover you for third party liability away from the house?

Does the golf courses?

 

[Sabretooth]

For various reasons, she didn't have any medical insurance, but it turned out that the owner of the vehicle was insured.

Why didn't she have medical insurance?

However, the insurance held by the owner had a cap of $15000 for a third party claim. The owner had no assets - no house (it was rental) no stocks, savings, nothing.

The injured girl has $120,000 in medical bills.

Why is this a 3rd party claim? She was directly effected by the policy holder, so even the driver's liability coverage should have been paying the full boat.
Something is missing here...if this is true, she should have hired an injury attorney.

Now, using that as an example, let's say some irresponsible gun owner was fooling around and managed to shoot this girl. It was an accident! Maybe he does some jail time. But if he has no assets, how is she going to be compensated?

What if she was injured by a person who legally couldn't possess a gun?

 

[Ziggurat]

matter TOO, not "matter a lot more".

Yes, matter a lot more.

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

Comparing states within the US, or even cities within the same state, shows that other factors are far more important.

yeah, right. All those countries have precise statistics about illegal guns that the government DOES NOT KNOWS about...

The level of precision varies by country. The link I gave also includes error bars.

if those statistics include illegal guns,

They do. Which is why you have nonzero numbers for Libya, for example, where private gun ownership was completely outlawed.

then the statistics are wrong and gun ownerships are probably much larger.

Evidence?

 

[Mudcat]

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

Its ridiculous because owning and operating a car legally is vastly more expensive than owning and operating guns are by far yet more than 80% of the population manage to do just that.

You argument is invalid because compared to owning and operating a boat, owning and operating a car is cheap and yet more than 70 million people do so.

Your argument is a [censored] joke because compared to operating and owning a plane, owning and operating a boat is dirt cheap. And yet hundreds of thousands manage it just fine.

And it's high time you stop treating gun ownership as a right. With each new restriction it's becoming more like the privilege it should be.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why is this a 3rd party claim? She was directly effected by the policy holder, so even the driver's liability coverage should have been paying the full boat.
Something is missing here...if this is true, she should have hired an injury attorney.

I suspect it wasn't a 3rd party claim, but rather the driver simply had minimum (r close to minimum) coverage, which can be that low for bodily injury claims.

But this example doesn't argue for gun insurance, it merely argues for higher bodily injury coverage for car insurance. After all, your risk of getting accidentally hit by a car are far higher than your risk of getting accidentally shot.

 

[Ziggurat]

Its ridiculous because owning and operating a car legally is vastly more expensive than owning and operating guns are by far yet more than 80% of the population manage to do just that.

Owning a car is also vastly more expensive than voting. Yet most people manage to do it, despite the various government-imposed costs.

So obviously, there's no problem with a $20 poll tax. After all, that's a lot cheaper than car insurance, which is only a fraction of the cost of car ownership.

And it's high time you stop treating gun ownership as a right.

But it is a right, guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. If you want to argue for repeal of the 2nd amendment, go for it (but good luck). If you want to argue that we should simply ignore the 2nd amendment, then **** off.

With each new restriction it's becoming more like the privilege as it should be.

A privilege for the rich. The peasantry should be unarmed, to better know their place at the feet of their betters.

 

[uk_dave]

Why didn't she have medical insurance?


Why is this a 3rd party claim? She was directly effected by the policy holder, so even the driver's liability coverage should have been paying the full boat.
Something is missing here...if this is true, she should have hired an injury attorney.



What if she was injured by a person who legally couldn't possess a gun?

Apparently some motor insurance policies in the US (this was in the state of arizona) have the minimum coverage which by law is $15000.

Yes we did actually consult a personal injuries lawyer, who was every bit as slippery as you would expect him to be.

He explained that the insurance is there to protect the insured. The minimum required by law is $15000 and so that is all the insurers will pay out.

The only way to get that increased would be to show that the insurer had been negligent in discharging their duties with regard to their insured, in other words if they failed to settle the claim in a timely manner or put unreasonable conditions on the settlement, such as indemnifying everyone in the entire state. Then, the insured person could claim against their insurance company and the payout would be greater, but it was still a case of going after the owner of the car and since a search of records indicated that the owner had no assets there was only the insurance cover available from the policy.

That's why I say it was an eye opener.
The girl (the injured party) was in her early twenties and living away from home with only a part time job. She couldn't afford any medical insurance.

My point was that any third party insurance, mandated by government, must be sufficient to reflect the cost of damage caused through negligence.

And it shouldn't be up to individuals who are not gun owners or car drivers to insure themselves against the recklessness of others.

(crikey, I haven't had a post count like this since the good old days on the conspiracy forum....yeeehaw, and so forth.)

 

[Sabretooth]

Its ridiculous because owning and operating a car legally is vastly more expensive than owning and operating guns are by far yet more than 80% of the population manage to do just that.

I don't know what uppity suburb you live in, but many people cannot afford a car.

You argument is invalid because compared to owning and operating a boat, owning and operating a car is cheap and yet more than 70 million people do so.

Your argument is a [censored] joke because compared to operating and owning a plane, owning and operating a boat is dirt cheap. And yet hundreds of thousands manage it just fine.

And your argument doesn't do what you think it does. How many poor people own boats and planes? What Amendment guarantees the right to own those items?

And it's high time you stop treating gun ownership as a right. With each new restriction it's becoming more like the privilege it should be.

When they change it to the Bill of Privileges, let me know.

I've lost all respect for you.

 

[monty1]

Apparently some motor insurance policies in the US (this was in the state of arizona) have the minimum coverage which by law is $15000.

Yes we did actually consult a personal injuries lawyer, who was every bit as slippery as you would expect him to be.

He explained that the insurance is there to protect the insured. The minimum required by law is $15000 and so that is all the insurers will pay out.

The only way to get that increased would be to show that the insurer had been negligent in discharging their duties with regard to their insured, in other words if they failed to settle the claim in a timely manner or put unreasonable conditions on the settlement, such as indemnifying everyone in the entire state. Then, the insured person could claim against their insurance company and the payout would be greater, but it was still a case of going after the owner of the car and since a search of records indicated that the owner had no assets there was only the insurance cover available from the policy.

That's why I say it was an eye opener.
The girl (the injured party) was in her early twenties and living away from home with only a part time job. She couldn't afford any medical insurance.

My point was that any third party insurance, mandated by government, must be sufficient to reflect the cost of damage caused through negligence.

And it shouldn't be up to individuals who are not gun owners or car drivers to insure themselves against the recklessness of others.

(crikey, I haven't had a post count like this since the good old days on the conspiracy forum....yeeehaw, and so forth.)

In B.C., Canada we have third party liability and no fault car insurance. If someone is injured or killed in an auto accident they are covered for damages, no apparent limit. This again is an indication of how we accept our social responsibilities.

We don't have insurance per se for gun injuries or death but we should. Shooting ranges carry insurance to protect members in nearly all cases. But even though we believe the citizen has a right to be safe in society, we don't insist on insurance against gungoons. Ther reason being that our gun violence is nowhere near that in the US.

The US is simply not a safe environment because of gun violence. The rights of the people have been trampled on by their 2nd. amendment which only really protect extremists. If it was interpreted correctly then things could change for the better. In the meantime they will continue to slaughter their 'own' children with their guns.

 

[Sabretooth]

My point was that any third party insurance, mandated by government, must be sufficient to reflect the cost of damage caused through negligence.

My problem is that if you are going to mandate $1M for guns, and since you're more likely to be injured in a vehicle, then mandate $1M or more for negligent use of a vehicle.

Go ahead, tell every car owner that their insurance just went up $1500+ a year. People would lose their ever-loving minds!

And it shouldn't be up to individuals who are not gun owners or car drivers to insure themselves against the recklessness of others.

And neither should the law-abiding gun owners have to pay for the criminal and negligent acts of the very few.

 

[Mudcat]

I don't know what uppity suburb you live in, but many people cannot afford a car.

I'm a middle class worker. It's called getting off your [censored] and putting forth the work. I could own a car if I truly wanted one, but its more practical for me to use the busses at the moment.

And your argument doesn't do what you think it does.

Since it shows that if you want something bad enough all you have to do is put forth the effort to get it... Yeah, my argument does exactly what I need it to.

How many poor people own boats and planes?

Probably more own boats than you suspect, but as for planes likely none.

What Amendment guarantees the right to own those items?

None, and I'm grateful for it.

I've lost all respect for you.

Oh? And I'm supposed to just mindlessly agree with you? That would require me to be dishonest with myself. I would rather gun ownership be treated as a privilege rather than a right, personally I think that's the only reasonable way to move forward.

Not gun bans.

 

[Nessie]

........


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

.........

OK, so how about making driving a car a right and doing the same with cars as guns? Hardly bother with any sensible regulation and stand by and watch as angry people slaughter each other in road rage incidents and criminals, nuts and kids get hold of loads of illegal cars and drive around killing themselves and others in numbers far greater than there should be.

That would be madness, yet because it is a right that is exactly what has happened with guns.

Why does having a right reduce your responsibility to your fellow man? (or woman)

 

[Nessie]

My problem is that if you are going to mandate $1M for guns, and since you're more likely to be injured in a vehicle, then mandate $1M or more for negligent use of a vehicle.

Go ahead, tell every car owner that their insurance just went up $1500+ a year. People would lose their ever-loving minds!



And neither should the law-abiding gun owners have to pay for the criminal and negligent acts of the very few.

I think compulsory insurance for guns is a very good idea. But don't just pluck a figure out of the air, let the market set how much it is as happens with vehicle insurance.

 

[monty1]

My problem is that if you are going to mandate $1M for guns, and since you're more likely to be injured in a vehicle, then mandate $1M or more for negligent use of a vehicle.

Go ahead, tell every car owner that their insurance just went up $1500+ a year. People would lose their ever-loving minds!



And neither should the law-abiding gun owners have to pay for the criminal and negligent acts of the very few.

In B.C., Canada third party liability is basic $1,000,000. An extra million or two is just a few bucks more.

If it's really the very few that you would have to pay for then it would be cheap as dirt. If in fact it's more than that then it would cost something substantial. In any case, you are responsible for the damage you do.