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

[thaiboxerken]

Lest we not forget, this law would do nothing to curb the illegal gun ownership or trade.

What do you base this claim on?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Keith and saber duke it out with the personal insults for a while. There goes the neighbourhood.

You have an interesting perspective on things.

 

[BenBurch]

If gun owners were taking responsibility, they would already own this sort of insurance without prompting.

 

[Sabretooth]

If gun owners were taking responsibility, they would already own this sort of insurance without prompting.

I should have insurance in case I commit a crime?

Just because I own a gun?

You should have insurance in case you stab someone with your multiple steak knives. No one needs 8 steak knives!

 

[Mudcat]

Then you would agree to the same strictures for the 1st Amendment?

Name a single instance where a person directs speech at a crowd or even a single person and it causes them to die with nothing else than speech and I'll concede the debate entirely.

This isn't about "affordable" insurance. It's about being forced to pay-to-play.

What other Amendments require you, by law, to have a monthly fee before you are allowed to utilize them?

What other Amendment is null and void if you can't afford the monthly premium?

Do we really need to go through this again? You must have some kind of memory problem here, because it's been explained to you, repeatedly, that owning and operating a car is much more expensive than a gun will ever be. It's to the point that you'll spend more per month for a car than you'll realistically spend on a year for a gun.

It's unlikely you'll be unable to afford the premiums for a gun unless you're a risky gun owner.

Are you a risky gun owner? Are many gun owners risky gun owners?

I already have homeowners insurance that covers me and others in the event of an accident with my firearm. Despite the Constitutional legality of proposing such a ridiculous law, I've yet to find an insurance company that will insure a person for committing a criminal act (which is how the proposed law currently reads).

Stop accusing gun-owners of "not taking responsibility". It's a wholly inaccurate statement and a strawman.

You aren't taking responsibility. House insurance only covers harm if harm is done within the confines of your house. Gun insurance is so much more. It covers harm where ever harm is done by your firearm. It covers you and protects you in case anything unforeseen happens. It's like having car insurance in that manner.

This is so easy to understand I'm surprised this must be explained to you.

 

[Mudcat]

Just because I own a gun?

You should have insurance in case you stab someone with your multiple steak knives. No one needs 8 steak knives!

Now you're just being silly. If I insure steak knives, for example, it's not because I might turn around and stab someone some day. It covers their cost if they are stolen, it also covers any damages that are done in the case that someone else takes them and stabs another person with them.

And on, and on.

 

[Sabretooth]

Do we really need to go through this again? You must have some kind of memory problem here, because it's been explained to you, repeatedly, that owning and operating a car is much more expensive than a gun will ever be. It's to the point that you'll spend more per month for a car than you'll realistically spend on a year for a gun.

It's unlikely you'll be unable to afford the premiums for a gun unless you're a risky gun owner.

Are you a risky gun owner? Are many gun owners risky gun owners?

And how many different ways does right and privilege need to be explained to you?

Tell me what part of this text is unclear:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It does not say, "...if you can afford the insurance premium".

It does say, "shall not be infringed". Mandating a cost to use a right no longer makes it a right. Mandating insurance is an infringement.

The Constitution does not protect a persons privilege to own/operate a vehicle. You're argument is invalid.

You aren't taking responsibility. House insurance only covers harm if harm is done within the confines of your house. Gun insurance is so much more. It covers harm where ever harm is done by your firearm. It covers you and protects you in case anything unforeseen happens. It's like having car insurance in that manner.

I'm not taking responsibility for what exactly? My actions? Of course I do. My personal integrity is extremely important to me.

But you are suggesting I must have insurance in case of an accident, then why only limit that to guns and cars?
- Some of my tools are dangerous and potentially deadly, should I get insurance for those? Am I irresponsible for not doing so?
- I have many knives...kitchen, hunting, folding...shall I insure those? Am I irresponsible for not doing so?
- I have a dog...shall I insure him? Am I irresponsible for not doing so?
- My fists might go wild and knock out some loud-mouth at the bar...shall I get insurance for that? Am I irresponsible for not doing so?

This is so easy to understand I'm surprised this must be explained to you.

All I understand is that you have tunnel-vision. You want, desperately, for guns and cars to be on par so you can plead your case. But until the Amendment for the right to car ownership is ratified, you don't have a case.

 

[monty1]

It's impossible to know how many handguns are in the US but estimates can probably come to within 10% as a guess, for legal guns at least. But with illegal handguns it's a different picture because the owners hide them for the most part. Considering the nature of the weapon, I would estimate that of the handguns in the US, about 75% would be illegal guns.

It would be interesting to hear a more reliable estimate but all my research on the topic turns up nothing of substance than it being impossible to estimate.

If only legal guns are required to be insured then the number of handguns being insured would be reduced a great deal from the number total. And of course, nobody is going to try to insure a legal one.

 

[Sabretooth]

Now you're just being silly. If I insure steak knives, for example, it's not because I might turn around and stab someone some day. It covers their cost if they are stolen, it also covers any damages that are done in the case that someone else takes them and stabs another person with them.

And on, and on.

It is silly. The highlighted is exactly what the proposed law wants me to do with my guns.

 

[Sabretooth]

Considering the nature of the weapon, I would estimate that of the handguns in the US, about 75% would be illegal guns.

This one little statement says a lot about your state of mind about the USA.

 

[AlBell]

Now you're just being silly. If I insure steak knives, for example, it's not because I might turn around and stab someone some day. It covers their cost if they are stolen, it also covers any damages that are done in the case that someone else takes them and stabs another person with them.

And on, and on.

As long as required gun insurance is also required to cover knives/swords/etc, no problem.

I'm considering whether to extend that to bats, batons, etc. Lengths of 2x4 too I suppose.

 

[Sabretooth]

Another thing about cost of guns

The price of the goods is set by the merchant, not the government. That's the definition of "free trade". If you don't want to pay that price, you move on to a firearm that fits within your budget. It's a one-time cost and fluctuates wildly based on what you're in the market for. I have two rifles and will soon have a handgun that I paid $zero for. I have a gun I paid $325 for in 2000. I have a gun I paid $550 for about a month ago. The ones that were bought were layaway purchases. I bought within my budget. I can purchase ammo at my leisure when I have the cash or am planning an outing.

Someone with zero dollars can still obtain a firearm legally at no cost...and because there is no cost to use the 2A, that person can do so without fear of additional cost.

So, currently, I have two rifles that were given to me. Perfectly legal and I can legally own them. Let's say I lost my job or have been out of work for a long time. I can't afford insurance. The 2A still allows me to own/operate those firearms.

By attempting a mandate that says if I cannot pay for insurance that you must void my 2A right? That's wrong.

That why the Constitution is the document that it is. It have given me a right to own/operate a firearm without infringement. It's the same reason that you cannot charge me to vote, or only count my vote if I own land.

There is no cost for my Constitutional rights, and there never should be.

 

[Mudcat]

And how many different ways does right and privilege need to be explained to you?

Again, so what? Seriously, so [censored] what? What does it really mater that one is a right and one is a privilege?

It's a demonstrable fact that cars are more expensive overall than guns are. It's a demonstrable fact that the car owning population vastly outnumbers the gun owning population despite that inescapable fact.

What bearing does one is a right and one a privilege has on this at all?

Tell me what part of this text is unclear:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It does not say, "...if you can afford the insurance premium".

It does say, "shall not be infringed". Mandating a cost to use a right no longer makes it a right. Mandating insurance is an infringement.

Oh? I guess we should stop infringing on the rights of criminals, the insane, and the under aged to posses and keep arms then.

Oh, right. I think I found the flaw in your argument, putting aside the fact that insurance is not an infringement.

I'm not taking responsibility for what exactly? My actions? Of course I do. My personal integrity is extremely important to me.

But you are suggesting I must have insurance in case of an accident, then why only limit that to guns and cars?

House insurance. It only protects you at home. If gun get taken and harm another out of home. Home insurance do not protect you.

Are you understanding me?

- Some of my tools are dangerous and potentially deadly, should I get insurance for those?
- I have many knives...kitchen, hunting, folding...shall I insure those?
- I have a dog...shall I insure him?
- My fists might go wild and knock out some loud-mouth at the bar...shall I get insurance for that?

You really don't have the first clue what you're arguing against, do you?

All I understand is that you have tunnel-vision.

You understand wrongly.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

WRT legislation, the "anything is better than nothing" frame of mind has gone a long way towards convincing me that "nothing" (which wasn't the case to begin with) is better than "anything" (which tries to identify a problem and takes broad steps to punish the law-abiding).

 

[monty1]

This one little statement says a lot about your state of mind about the USA.

Yes it does but nobody has provided a referenced rebuttal yet.

 

[Mudcat]

It is silly. The highlighted is exactly what the proposed law wants me to do with my guns.

No, you are being silly because you have demonstrated you don't understand what the insurance is meant to do.

As long as required gun insurance is also required to cover knives/swords/etc, no problem. I'm considering whether to extend that to bats, batons, etc. Lengths of 2x4 too I suppose.

The knives, sword, and other melee weapon problem isn't in the same league as the gun problem. Not even remotely.

 

[GeeMack]

Considering the nature of the weapon, I would estimate that of the handguns in the US, about 75% would be illegal guns.

This one little statement says a lot about your state of mind about the USA.

And in context it becomes an even more unreasonable argument...

It would be interesting to hear a more reliable estimate but all my research on the topic turns up nothing of substance than it being impossible to estimate.

Considering the nature of the weapon, I would estimate that of the handguns in the US, about 75% would be illegal guns.

 

[GeeMack]

Yes it does but nobody has provided a referenced rebuttal yet.

A guess based on another guess that it's impossible to guess? Seriously? No rebuttal necessary. The argument was acknowledged to be a failure before it was made.

 

[monty1]

A guess based on another guess that it's impossible to guess? Seriously? No rebuttal necessary. The argument was acknowledged to be a failure before it was made.

I guess we'll have to run with it until we get something better then. But if we take an estimate of the legal handguns in the US we would have a rough idea on how many would need to be insured. Then we would deduct a good number of them, maybe 25%, that wouldn't be insured because of the American gungoon mindset of stubbornness. That would again make that 25%illegal guns too.

 

[GeeMack]

I guess we'll have to run with it until we get something better then.

No. We don't have to run with anything which is acknowledged to be made up from scratch. That's not how reasonable arguments are formed.

But if we take an estimate of the legal handguns in the US we would have a rough idea on how many would need to be insured. Then we would deduct a good number of them, maybe 25%, that wouldn't be insured because of the American gungoon mindset of stubbornness. That would again make that 25%illegal guns too.

Nonsense. If we pull a number out of a hat and build an argument on that, then it's an argument definitively based on a work of fiction.