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

[Nessie]

What about gang feuds? Does that count as "conflict"?

Please read the links I provide. Gangs are listed separately, as are drive by shootings.

 

[Mudcat]

True, but maybe that handgun doesn't actually cost $500, it costs $500+insurance.

Let's run a comparison here to show why the pro gun side of the argument is so ridiculous:

| Firearms | Automobiles
New: | $149-$500 | $15,00+
Used: | Free-$500 | $500-$15,00+
Expendables (fuel/ammo): | $24+ 50 rounds | $3-$4 a gallon
Insurance: | $10 a month | $300-$1,000+ a month

It gets even more ridiculous when you point out such expenses such as maintenance and the inescapable fact that people spend far more time behind a wheel then behind the barrel of a gun meaning that the differences in expenditures become even more pronounced. And gun owners whine about a mere $10 a month insurance policy?

Am I supposed to respect this?

 

[Sabretooth]

Let's run a comparison here to show why the pro gun side of the argument is so ridiculous:

| Firearms | Automobiles
New: |
Used: |
Expendables (fuel/ammo):

Do your yearly premiums for insurance cost 400% the value of your car?

So, yeah, your point is ridiculous.

 

[BenBurch]

Yeah, that is a lot of auto insurance. I pay like $300 every six months.

 

[WildCat]

Huh?

It's just covering the cost of holding electuions, what's your problem with it?

Rather more to the point, do you believe that guns should be provided free of charge by the government?

Where on earth did you get that idea?

Do you think the govenmmnet should supply free printing presses since you have the right to "freedom of the press"?

This isn't about the cost of guns, this is about the costs government imposes to excercise a Constitutional right. Like a poll tax.

 

[WildCat]

Please read the links I provide. Gangs are listed separately, as are drive by shootings.

It also adds up to much more than 100%, so obviously the categories are rather fluid.

 

[Mudcat]

Do your yearly premiums for insurance cost 400% the value of your car?

Oh? $10 a month is 400% the value of your guns? Man, what cheap guns you must have bought. By the way, your point is rendered invalid by the fact you still pay more per month to own/operate a car than you will likely spend over a year of owning a gun.

Wether a owning and operating either is right or privilege is entirely moot.

Yeah, that is a lot of auto insurance. I pay like $300 every six months.

I'll be sure to add that in, my figures for car insurance came from Progressive and it only showed premiums.

 

[WildCat]

Let's run a comparison here to show why the pro gun side of the argument is so ridiculous:

| Firearms | Automobiles
New: | $149-$500 | $15,00+
Used: | Free-$500 | $500-$15,00+
Expendables (fuel/ammo): | $24+ 50 rounds | $3-$4 a gallon
Insurance: | $10 a month | $1,000+ a month

It gets even more ridiculous when you point out such expenses such as maintenance and the inescapable fact that people spend far more time behind a wheel then behind the barrel of a gun meaning that the differences in expenditures become even more pronounced. And gun owners whine about a mere $10 a month insurance policy?

Am I supposed to respect this?

OK Mr. Intellectual, can you link to the part of the Constitution that recognizes a right to drive an automobile on a public street? No? Didn't think so, but I did enjoy your silly analogy.

 

[WildCat]

I'll be sure to add that in, my figures for car insurance came from Progressive and it only showed premiums.

You must have one horrible driving record if it costs you $1,000/month.

 

[uk_dave]

The free market steps up to the plate....

If you're one of the estimated 4 million American gun and rifle owners, you may be carrying a significant and unnecessary risk. Owning a firearm these days exposes you to far-reaching, individual liability. Gun owners are commonly being held responsible for damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of their firearms – even if the negligent or willful act takes place after the gun is lost or stolen. As the registered owner of the gun, new laws place ultimate liability on you.

http://www.xinsurance.com/insurance-options/personal-liability/concealed-weapons/

Difficult to find actual premiums quoted for US gun owners, but I did find this for the UK.....

£10 million public liability cover, and further benefits.

Going Hunting, Shooting or Fishing today or tomorrow? Become a C3 member NOW! Buy online and you are entitled to all the benefits, discounts, and your members insurance is effective immediately, TODAY!

COUNTRY COVER CLUB £24.95 p.a.

http://www.ccc3.org.uk/home?exref=8C19

£10million (that would be about $15million) for £24.95 per year.

 

[WildCat]

The free market steps up to the plate....


http://www.xinsurance.com/insurance-options/personal-liability/concealed-weapons/

Difficult to find actual premiums quoted for US gun owners, but I did find this for the UK.....


http://www.ccc3.org.uk/home?exref=8C19

£10million (that would be about $15million) for £24.95 per year.

Not even comparable, because the NY state proposal requires the insurance to cover intentional negligence as well as criminal use. Normally insurance excludes this sort of thing because it introduces a moral hazard. They're mandating insurance coverage that doesn't even exist.

eta: plus inn the UK the largest expense - medical - isn't an issue because you have UHC so I assume that covers only property damage. Plus it only covers for damage incurred at the gun club.

 

[Mudcat]

OK Mr. Intellectual, can you link to the part of the Constitution that recognizes a right to drive an automobile on a public street? No? Didn't think so, but I did enjoy your silly analogy.

So what? No really. So [censored] what? It is demonstrably more expensive to own and operate a car than a gun.

Despite this, 80% of the population are licensed car owners and less than 50% of the population are licensed gun owners.

Wether operating one or the other are right or privilege is a completely moot point. Your argument is invalid. Period.

 

[monty1]

If there is one reason why insurance on guns would be more expensive in the US it's because the US has far more gun violence than the U.K. Gun insurance in the US will be based on experience and I still don't see any reason to expect that it will be expensive. That is, for those who buy the insurance which needs to be mandatory and that excludes criminals who own gun illegally.

But there's one thing for sure, whatever the cost of the insurance, it will be up to the gun owners themselves. If they are safe gun owners as they claim then surely it won't be anymore than a few bucks. I can understand though why they are so strongly opposing it. It's because they know in their hearts that most gun owners are not safety conscious gun owners!

 

[GlennB]

Which part of the Constitution says you have the right to own a gun regardless of the cost?

The 2nd amendment. Duh!

Well, duh! The Second makes no mention of cost, which is Upchurch's entire point. Some dirt-poor person who couldn't afford a gun had no right to have a gun handed to him for free.

Meanwhile the right to exercise free speech might well carry the incidental cost of paying for legal aid if it came to court.

The right to assemble doesn't include getting your bus fare (or car insurance) paid for you.

and so on ....

Requiring insurance against risks inherent in claiming constitutional rights does not infringe The Constitution itself.

 

[monty1]

Well, duh! The Second makes no mention of cost, which is Upchurch's entire point. Some dirt-poor person who couldn't afford a gun had no right to have a gun handed to him for free.

Meanwhile the right to exercise free speech might well carry the incidental cost of paying for legal aid if it came to court.

The right to assemble doesn't include getting your bus fare (or car insurance) paid for you.

and so on ....

Requiring insurance against risks inherent in claiming constitutional rights does not infringe The Constitution itself.

That is so right and sensible that it's amazing anyone would have the nerve to argue it. Attitudes definitely need to change in the US, and soon!

 

[Sabretooth]

Oh? $10 a month is 400% the value of your guns? Man, what cheap guns you must have bought. By the way, your point is rendered invalid by the fact you still pay more per month to own/operate a car than you will likely spend over a year of owning a gun.

Wrong. Estimates are ranging from $1600 to $2000 per year per various news sources. Please source your $10/month figure.

$133/month on the low end is more than I pay for car insurance on two vehicles (which is 5 monthly payments of $73 per 6 month period).

I paid $325 for my shotgun. $1600 a year in premiums is 492% the value of that shotgun each year.

If you bought a car for $15,000 and the insurance was $60,000/year, there would be very few cars on the road.

Wether a owning and operating either is right or privilege is entirely moot.

It's only moot to you so you have a fallacy to prove your point.

 

[uk_dave]

So, do you suppose the insurers are fleecing the consumers? I mean, if you're a low risk gun owner, why should the premiums be so high?

Possibly your sources are putting the worst possible spin on it?

I'd like to know what a major US insurer would expect the premiums to be.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, duh! The Second makes no mention of cost, which is Upchurch's entire point. Some dirt-poor person who couldn't afford a gun had no right to have a gun handed to him for free.

This argument only makes sense if you don't understand the difference between a positive and a negative right. I thought we were well past such silly misconceptions, because poor people DO in fact have the right to have a gun handed to them for free. In fact, one of the posters here said he did precisely that for a poor friend of his.

Meanwhile the right to exercise free speech might well carry the incidental cost of paying for legal aid if it came to court.

Your hiring of legal aid is not a necessary part of the exercise of free speech. While there might be practical reasons to do so, there is no legal requirement for it.

The right to assemble doesn't include getting your bus fare (or car insurance) paid for you.

You continue to confuse incidental costs of convenience with necessary costs imposed by the government.

Requiring insurance against risks inherent in claiming constitutional rights does not infringe The Constitution itself.

Yes, it does. For the exact same reason that a poll tax cannot be used to cover the costs of voting.

 

[Sabretooth]

Well, duh! The Second makes no mention of cost, which is Upchurch's entire point. Some dirt-poor person who couldn't afford a gun had no right to have a gun handed to him for free.

You're right, there is no mention of cost. So that must mean we can charge what we want for any Amendment!

I'll send you bill for $20 for using your 1A right to make that ridiculous point.

Meanwhile the right to exercise free speech might well carry the incidental cost of paying for legal aid if it came to court.

Good point. So you now are required to carry libel insurance, you know, just in case. Can't be too careful.

The right to assemble doesn't include getting your bus fare (or car insurance) paid for you.

Um, what? Is someone suggesting that gun-owners should be paid to exercise the 2A? Because that's exactly what you just said.

Also, apparently, there's a charge for walking now?

Requiring insurance against risks inherent in claiming constitutional rights does not infringe The Constitution itself.

Of course it does. The proposal says you may not use the 2A if you don't pay for it. Why are you ignoring this fact?

That is so right and sensible that it's amazing anyone would have the nerve to argue it. Attitudes definitely need to change in the US, and soon!

Convenient to have this opinion when it doesn't affect you in the very least, isn't it?

 

[Mudcat]

Wrong. Estimates are ranging from $1600 to $2000 per year per various news sources. Please source your $10/month figure.

From this very thread. Haven't you been paying attention to the thread?

$133/month on the low end is more than I pay for car insurance on two vehicles (which is 5 monthly payments of $73 per 6 month period).

There's a whole range of payments that vary based upon what kind of vehicle is being insured, the age of who is being insured, city and state of insurance, and so on that its hard to get a bead on just how much insurance costs per month. I think I did cover it accurately though.

I paid $325 for my shotgun. $1600 a year in premiums is 492% the value of that shotgun each year.

Awwww, you're breaking my heart... Yeah, not really. This is still cheap compared to owning and operating a car.

It's only moot to you so you have a fallacy to prove your point.

Um, no. While its certainly true that owning and operating a gun is right and owning/operating a car is a privilege it still doesn't change huge gap in expenses between the two. Nor does it change the huge gap in numbers of licensed owner/operators between the two.

You can hold your breath, cry with all your might, throw a tantrum that one's a right and one's a privilege until you're blue in the face like a child, but it doesn't change the facts. And it sure as hell doesn't change the fact that freedom isn't free.