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

Dr. Keith said:
Yes, there are circumstances where it would provide benefit, but it won't have as much impact in reducing gun violence as a simple registry system would for about the same overhead costs.
Click to expand...

Well, I think even if the insurance is subsidised by a lobby group such as the NRA they're still going to be leery of big payouts due to the actions of irresponsible gun owners, so I suspect even their premiums are likely to reflect the risk a particular owner exhibits and in so doing could actually change risky behaviour for the better.

But I also agree that the other measures such as registration of the weapon should also be implemented.

Oh and proper enforcement of existing laws which impact those 2A rights but for some reason seem to be considered acceptable. ;)
 
Sabretooth said:
After speaking with a family insurance writer, she doesn't know of any personal or business policy that would insure you against "willful acts", because it's essentially insurance to commit a crime.
Click to expand...

This is the primary problem with such a law. Insurance rarely covers intentional acts on the part of the insured.

To put in place a type of policy that has that coverage as a major element is quite a change.
 
monty1 said:
That problem the gungoons claim doesn't exist in the US. People getting shot dead all out of proportion to civilized countries that care about social issues.
Click to expand...

So let's ignore the real problem [illegal guns] and go after a different set of people instead [legal owners]!

Brilliant!
 
BStrong said:
My bet is you'll be disappointed.
Click to expand...

Not really. The pro gun side do have several legitimate objections in this very thread, and I have several practical objections to it as well. So it wouldn't surprise nor disappoint me if it never gets passed. Honest it won't.

But the entirety of my point is that the cost of it isn't a legitimate concern, because even with the added cost of insurance it doesn't bring the costs of owning a gun anywhere near that of owning a car.

That is all.
 
Sabretooth said:
Here's one:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...urance-or-forfeit-privilege-to-own-a-firearm/
Click to expand...

Thanks for putting me through pop-up hell!

The Blaze cites The Examiner for this claim. The Examiner cites no one and presents the claim as:

It is estimated that simple liability insurance for $1 million in coverage for gun owners would cost between $1600-2000 annually.​

They don't even have someone to quote for that claim. Imagine how off the wall the guess is if you can't even find an insurance agent willing to be quoted for the article.

Sorry, I have more faith in the numbers that have been tossed around here than I do in some pop-up ridden web article that doesn't even pretend to have a source.

But, I do appreciate you pointing me to the source since I missed it earlier. This thread is too long for such a stupid proposal.
 
DavidJames said:
References to The Blaze should be included in the auto censor database.
Click to expand...

Yeah, clicking through to The Examiner was even worse. My bad, but it was written as if they had a source so I felt some duty to see what that source was.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Thanks for putting me through pop-up hell!

The Blaze cites The Examiner for this claim. The Examiner cites no one and presents the claim as:

It is estimated that simple liability insurance for $1 million in coverage for gun owners would cost between $1600-2000 annually.​

They don't even have someone to quote for that claim. Imagine how off the wall the guess is if you can't even find an insurance agent willing to be quoted for the article.

Sorry, I have more faith in the numbers that have been tossed around here than I do in some pop-up ridden web article that doesn't even pretend to have a source.

But, I do appreciate you pointing me to the source since I missed it earlier. This thread is too long for such a stupid proposal.
Click to expand...

NP.

Unfortunately, being one of limited insurance understanding, all I have is the estimate of others.

I can't imagine it would be $10/month.

The $2K seems high, someone said $640ish. But wouldn't that $640 be the price per year with no profit margin? Should that be higher?

Either way, at ~$700 a year, that still means I'm paying the same amount to insure two cars that I drive every single day. I use my guns 4-5 times a year most years. It's still not cost effective to me.

Regardless of the actual cost, it's still wrong to force me to pay to exercise a right.

I'm also speculating that something like this could create a class-warfare type issue.
 
Sabretooth said:
So let's ignore the real problem [illegal guns] and go after a different set of people instead [legal owners]!

Brilliant!
Click to expand...

Yes! That is a start to addressing the problem and it's a big part statistically speaking. Now you're starting to tread water with your objections to this thing.

If your country was able to bring the gun violence under control regarding the legal gun owners, your country would start to approach comparable levels of gun violence perped by the criminal element. Approach, not equal for a while at least.

And that's what 'you' want isn't it sabre!
 
monty1 said:
Yes! That is a start to addressing the problem and it's a big part statistically speaking. Now you're starting to tread water with your objections to this thing.

If your country was able to bring the gun violence under control regarding the legal gun owners, your country would start to approach comparable levels of gun violence perped by the criminal element. Approach, not equal for a while at least.

And that's what 'you' want isn't it sabre!
Click to expand...

What is the blue hell are you babbling about?

FWIW - the only reason I don't have you on ignore is due to the strangely entertaining train(wrecks) of thought you have...
 
Sabretooth said:
Yeah, sorry about that. It was just the last article I was reading that mentioned it. :o:boxedin:
Click to expand...

I've already started a campaign to have you banned. I've been told that once we effectively censor Robert Morrow there will be more mod time to focus on you and your egregious ways. Dude must be dropping some real hard truth. :D
 
Dr. Keith said:
I've already started a campaign to have you banned. I've been told that once we effectively censor Robert Morrow there will be more mod time to focus on you and your egregious ways. Dude must be dropping some real hard truth. :D
Click to expand...

Ha! I've already purchased JREF Ban Insurance! ;)
 
Keith and saber duke it out with the personal insults for a while. There goes the neighbourhood.
 
Upchurch said:
And that supports my point. Thank you.
Click to expand...

What's your point? He still has the RIGHT to have that gun. He is not violating any laws whatsoever, and he still has that ability to own it, possess it, take it in his car, leave it on his nightstand if he wants.
 
uk_dave said:
So if you're flat broke without two pennies to rub together you still get a gun?

Cool!
Click to expand...

Yes, meaning he has no further expenses to keep that gun, carry that gun, and use that gun if he really needs to, which I surely hope he never does.

None. Zero. No fees, insurance, taxes, license requirements, nothing.
 
Sabretooth said:
Either way, at ~$700 a year, that still means I'm paying the same amount to insure two cars that I drive every single day.
Click to expand...

Not surprising since the source for $642 pa for firearms put the total cost of shooting incidents at more than automobile accidents.
 
Upchurch said:
Not even close. Humans can be denied both of those rights, even by the US, as we have seen. It was only through the balance of governmental powers, not any innate human right, that any attempt was made to correct the situation.

Would you like to try again?
Click to expand...

No, because of two reasons.

1- Military tribunals run slightly differently, and as such, are governed by a different set of rule.
2- They're not US Citizens, or really the citizens of any country, they're enemy combatants.
3- The Geneva Convention rules apply, not US law. (Though some disagree, I personally feel that they should have been shot in the desert, and left for the scorpions, but that's just me.)

Would YOU like that try again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom