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

monty1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your health system has a huge impact on this. Or should I say the health system in the USA has a huge impact on this.

Most insurance payouts go to the medical profession in the USA.
 
Nessie said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think it is a bad idea because the numbers show that the actual cost would be minimal for most gun owners. The rest would simply ignore the requirements, like uninsured motorist.
 
Mudcat said:
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.
Click to expand...
Good. Some respect has returned.

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.
Click to expand...
To a certain POV, yes I suppose it does. But you are missing my point. This proposal is specifically aimed at taking guns away from poor people.

Why do I think it's obvious? Because the politico that proposed this bill is from the Bronx, where you have to prove you can walk on water to even think about owning a firearm.

Oh? And I'm supposed to just mindlessly agree with you? That would require me to be dishonest with myself.
Click to expand...
Nope, you can believe what you want...it's still a free country (so far).

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.
Click to expand...
If you said something along the lines of "a privilege for everyone who is not a criminal or lunatic", I would have gotten your point the first time, because it's still your right until you break the law or become a danger to society.

But what I can't agree with is making it a privilege for the upper class.

If we are going to apply a cost to having a right, then it's not a right.

Poll taxes were the same thing. So was the idea of only allowing property owners to vote.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I think it is a bad idea because the numbers show that the actual cost would be minimal for most gun owners. The rest would simply ignore the requirements, like uninsured motorist.
Click to expand...

Well I think it is a good idea as it means when gun owners shoot innocents they can foot the medical bills/funeral costs/compensation and if they don't have insurance they become personally liable and if they don't pay up go to prison.

Since angry people, not criminals are the biggest killers, that may help to calm some of those angry people down, or persuade them not to get their gun. The criminals can just go to prison for even longer.
 
Sabretooth said:
If you said something along the lines of "a privilege for everyone who is not a criminal or lunatic", I would have gotten your point the first time, because it's still your right until you break the law or become a danger to society.
Click to expand...

I guess I should have made that clear. I'm sorry, it's completely my fault.

Sabertooth said:
If we are going to apply a cost to having a right, then it's not a right.
Click to expand...

There I have to disagree with you. There are costs associated with the efficient use of most of our rights. For example, I have the freedom of speech. But in order to spread that speech to a significant amount of people I have to spend money in one way or another, and that's not something everyone can afford to do. That privilege doesn't make it any less of a right.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Keith said:
Your health system has a huge impact on this. Or should I say the health system in the USA has a huge impact on this.

Most insurance payouts go to the medical profession in the USA.
Click to expand...

My car has been hit by another motorist on two occasions. On neither occasion was there any injury, and on both occasions, the other person's insurance had to pay to fix my car.

The biggest claim payouts tend to go towards injury claims (which is actually more than just medicals costs, btw), but I suspect the largest number of claims are non-injury property damage claims.
 
Mudcat said:
There I have to disagree with you. There are costs associated with the efficient use of most of our rights.
Click to expand...

But not with the exercise of the right itself, only your use of other people's resources which may make that exercise more productive. And those costs are not imposed by government, nor are they intrinsic to the right itself, but are merely a result of your purchase of particular resources. If that purchase became unnecessary for whatever reason (for example, you can now email all your friends instead of sending them postal mail), then there would be no cost.

For example, I have the freedom of speech. But in order to spread that speech to a significant amount of people I have to spend money in one way or another, and that's not something everyone can afford to do. That privilege doesn't make it any less of a right.
Click to expand...

It would if government imposed those costs on you as a necessary condition of exercising your right. You might need to spend money in order to get from your house to the voting booth. But that doesn't mean the government can impose a poll tax.
 
Nessie said:
Well I think it is a good idea as it means when gun owners shoot innocents they can foot the medical bills/funeral costs/compensation and if they don't have insurance they become personally liable and if they don't pay up go to prison.
Click to expand...

We don't put people in prison for failing to have insurance or for being unable to fulfill financial obligations unless they owe the government. We could change that, but I think it unlikely.

Since angry people, not criminals are the biggest killers, that may help to calm some of those angry people down, or persuade them not to get their gun. The criminals can just go to prison for even longer.
Click to expand...

If the insurance pays for the results of intentional acts then wouldn't it really just excuse the person from liability for their acts? Shoot someone out front and the insurance kicks in, no big deal, not like they'll sue and take away my savings.

People with nothing to lose will still have nothing to lose. People with something to lose will have less to lose. I think there is a moral hazard there.
 
Ziggurat said:
The biggest claim payouts tend to go towards injury claims (which is actually more than just medicals costs, btw), but I suspect the largest number of claims are non-injury property damage claims.
Click to expand...

Yes, my wording was poorly chosen. I meant most of the spending is for medical bills. It may not be a clear majority, but it is the behemoth.
 
Ziggurat said:
But not with the exercise of the right itself, only your use of other people's resources which may make that exercise more productive. And those costs are not imposed by government, nor are they intrinsic to the right itself, but are merely a result of your purchase of particular resources. If that purchase became unnecessary for whatever reason (for example, you can now email all your friends instead of sending them postal mail), then there would be no cost.



It would if government imposed those costs on you as a necessary condition of exercising your right. You might need to spend money in order to get from your house to the voting booth. But that doesn't mean the government can impose a poll tax.
Click to expand...

Unless you own your own gun range, and maybe even if you do, you still have to purchase the use of one in order to practice your skills as a gun owner. You have to pay for ammo even if you pack your own, you have to purchase maintenance gear, licenses, and on in order to be a responsible gun owner.

What's an extra ten to a hundred bucks a month to cover yourself in case something unforseaible happens?
 
Dr. Keith said:
We don't put people in prison for failing to have insurance or for being unable to fulfill financial obligations unless they owe the government. We could change that, but I think it unlikely.
Click to expand...

I am saying the insurance should be compulsory as car insurance is. No insurance here means 6 points, half way to a years ban from driving. I have been arguing for a permit system for guns, so gun owners could pick up points that leads them to a ban from having a gun.



If the insurance pays for the results of intentional acts then wouldn't it really just excuse the person from liability for their acts? Shoot someone out front and the insurance kicks in, no big deal, not like they'll sue and take away my savings.
Click to expand...

Try getting insured after you have shot a Japanese exchange student dressed as John Travolta, or left your gun in the car and it was stolen. Faced with becoming an expensive risk I think would help concentrate the minds of gun owners on their responsibilities.

People with nothing to lose will still have nothing to lose. People with something to lose will have less to lose. I think there is a moral hazard there.
Click to expand...

That happens in all circumstances.
 
Mudcat said:
I guess I should have made that clear. I'm sorry, it's completely my fault.
Click to expand...
No harm, no foul.

There I have to disagree with you. There are costs associated with the efficient use of most of our rights. For example, I have the freedom of speech. But in order to spread that speech to a significant amount of people I have to spend money in one way or another, and that's not something everyone can afford to do. That privilege doesn't make it any less of a right.
Click to expand...
I suppose you've never heard of the internet? ;)

Look at another part of 1A...freedom of religion. Tell me, how many tax dollars did churches submit to the Federal and State governments last year?

Look at the whole BOR...is there any right in there that forces you to pay to use it?

Yes, I know, you have to buy a firearm...but they can be gifted as well. My dad could give me one of his 7 pistols and it costs me nothing. Now I still have my 2A without spending a dime.

With this proposal, there is no chance of a free ride. If I own a gun, I must pay, period. If you can't afford the insurance, then you don't qualify to use your 2A....mmmwwwahahaha.

(I imagine that last part as a maniacal laugh...just go with it)

Bottom line is, if you're poor, all those BOR's still are available to you at no cost.

But we'll sell you the 2A for just $1599 a year....that's $1599 per year!

(I imagine that line in a infomercial voice over...just go with it)

Can we at least agree that a right is one that you shouldn't have to pay for?
 
Having been told to my face that it was OK for me to own a gun, but those other people...

And when it was explained to me by the individual in question that those other people meant the people south of market, you know, the cholos, I'm not convinced that class and race doesn't still play a part in proposed firearms restrictions.
 
Ziggurat said:
It would if government imposed those costs on you as a necessary condition of exercising your right. You might need to spend money in order to get from your house to the voting booth. But that doesn't mean the government can impose a poll tax.
Click to expand...
Well, it did mean the government could impose a poll tax, right up until poll taxes were explicitly banned by constitutional amendment, which suggests that it isn't (or wasn't) a clear cut constitutional question as to whether the state can impose costs on fundamental rights. We know that it's legal to charge filing fees for permits for public assemblies, for example--I don't think it follows that the right to assembly is only for the rich, I guess the poor can just cower silently as their betters dominate them politically, etc. I would guess the relevant question isn't simply whether government is imposing costs, but whether those costs are related to some state interest serious enough that it merits burdening important rights. Or at least I think it ought to be.

Shifting the costs of gun ownership to gun owners and providing incentives for responsible gun ownership sounds like a pretty good candidate to me. That shouldn't be read as an endorsement of this legislation, but the "I guess you only get rights if you can afford them!" stuff is inappropriate.
 
Sabretooth said:
I suppose you've never heard of the internet? ;)
Click to expand...

I have, but you still have to pay for the usage of the Internet. True that has become very affordable these days, but that's aside the point.

Sabretooth said:
Look at another part of 1A...freedom of religion. Tell me, how many tax dollars did churches submit to the Federal and State governments last year?
Click to expand...

It costs around two million dollars to build a church, and their bills aren't exactly cheap either.

That aside, I support the call to tax religious organizations.
 
DavidJames said:
aw, poor babies. Their tools of death are getting expensive.

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 have an idea or two about what you could do to boast theiir esteem.:D:jaw-dropp
 
Mudcat said:
There I have to disagree with you. There are costs associated with the efficient use of most of our rights. For example, I have the freedom of speech. But in order to spread that speech to a significant amount of people I have to spend money in one way or another, and that's not something everyone can afford to do. That privilege doesn't make it any less of a right.
Click to expand...

Which of those costs is government-mandated free speech insurance, without which your right to free speech will be removed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom