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

[uk_dave]

Considering I have yet to hear or read of an agency that will offer such insurance, I wonder how you've come to this conclusion.

But doesn't it trouble you that the free market insurance industry apparently doesn't think gun owners are a good risk?

If the problem is small, then the risk is low, then the premiums should be affordable.

If the problem is great and the insurance industry doesn't want to touch it, well, that doesn't speak well of gun ownership in the US.

 

[Ziggurat]

Can't say as I've ever met any "gungoons".

They're the worst. Especially that Jar-Jar guy.

 

[jimbob]

But doesn't it trouble you that the free market insurance industry apparently doesn't think gun owners are a good risk?

If the problem is small, then the risk is low, then the premiums should be affordable.

If the problem is great and the insurance industry doesn't want to touch it, well, that doesn't speak well of gun ownership in the US.

Cain (I think) made a related point - that if guns in the home reduced risk, then gun owners should get a discount on their premiums.

 

[Sabretooth]

But doesn't it trouble you that the free market insurance industry apparently doesn't think gun owners are a good risk?

If the problem is small, then the risk is low, then the premiums should be affordable.

If the problem is great and the insurance industry doesn't want to touch it, well, that doesn't speak well of gun ownership in the US.

You're moving goalposts and creating a strawman at the same time.


Please, tell me of a single personal insurance policy that insures you for performing a criminal act (which is what the text of this law requires).

 

[BenBurch]

Considering I have yet to hear or read of an agency that will offer such insurance, I wonder how you've come to this conclusion.

If the risk is low, the insurance is cheap.

That's how it works.

 

[Ziggurat]

If the risk is low, the insurance is cheap.

That's how it works.

Which works well if you can accurately assess risk. But when you have to insure against deliberate criminal actions, there's a little problem called information asymmetry, which means that the insurer can't accurately assess the risk they're insuring against.

Plus, the very idea of insuring against deliberate criminal action from the policy holder is perverse. You're directly subsidizing criminals at the expense of law-abiding citizens. And that's just ********** up.

 

[Ziggurat]

Cain (I think) made a related point - that if guns in the home reduced risk, then gun owners should get a discount on their premiums.

The risk of what?

Your home insurance doesn't need to pay anything if you get killed by an intruder. So they're never going to lower your premium no matter how much you reduce that risk.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

No I want gun owners to insure themselves so as to be able to pay for their accidents when they accidentally shoot pals out hunting, when they are careless and leave a gun that a toddler gets hold of and shoots another child, when they go rage and shoot innocents who they think was a threat to them but was just dressed as John Travolta going to a party.




This is not a measure to deal with criminals, it is a measure to help make legal gun owners more responsible with their guns. If you are worried about insurance fraud, there are ways of dealing with it such as the rest of the insurance industry is huge and I suspect you don't consider such as a problem when insuring your car, house, cat or whatever.

Your position presupposes that there is a large number of gun owners who are irresponsible and /or careless.
Facts, please.

 

[bynmdsue]

They're the worst. Especially that Jar-Jar guy.

Ha! Finally!

 

[jimbob]

Cain (I think) made a related point - that if guns in the home reduced risk, then gun owners should get a discount on their premiums.

The risk of what?

Your home insurance doesn't need to pay anything if you get killed by an intruder. So they're never going to lower your premium no matter how much you reduce that risk.

Life assurance.

If one gets a gun to protect oneself from being killed by an intruder, then presumably the actuaries will have spotted that this lower risk should reduce the premium, whilst being a smoker will increase it.

 

[triforcharity]

Regarding Magpul. Boo *********** hoo. Shutting down meth labs puts people out of work as well.

They're not upset. They're excited because they're going to move to another location, and be able to produce their product without huge unnecessary restrictions, and those states will most likely give them a few years of tax free living. Good for them. **** Colorado, New York, and every other state who wants to curtail the citizens' rights.

 

[bynmdsue]

I am assuming a gun starts life in a US factory and is then sold to a dealer and then to civilians. From those civilians the criminals get their guns by straw purchases, civilians selling to people they know/should know they should not be selling to, thefts and borrowing. Some guns will also go straight from dodgy dealers to criminals.
...

So unless illegal gun makers are selling straight to criminals, I stand by my claim the guns start off legal.

Some guns disappear between those first two steps. They're shipped by rail and there's not really all that much security.

As for the rest, straw purchases are illegal, private sale to felons is illegal, theft is illegal, shady but "legitimate" dealers selling to foks they shouldn't are breaking the law. Yet it still goes on. Laws can't stop anything, in a way they're not designed to, instead they're there to allow the state to prosecute after someone breaks them.

 

[triforcharity]

Exactly, so why the resistance?

Unnecessary, and possibly illegal.

 

[triforcharity]

But doesn't it trouble you that the free market insurance industry apparently doesn't think gun owners are a good risk?

If the problem is small, then the risk is low, then the premiums should be affordable.

If the problem is great and the insurance industry doesn't want to touch it, well, that doesn't speak well of gun ownership in the US.

Or, maybe it's because the law in New York is too broad, and would be required to cover criminal acts?

 

[monty1]

Unnecessary, and possibly illegal.

Totally necessary considering the level of gun violence and killing of your 'own' children with your guns. And definitely not illegal in the least. You need to wrap your mind around the concept of a correct interpretation of that crazy 2a.

 

[Ziggurat]

Life assurance.

If one gets a gun to protect oneself from being killed by an intruder, then presumably the actuaries will have spotted that this lower risk should reduce the premium, whilst being a smoker will increase it.

I suspect there's simply too much information asymmetry (why are you buying a gun?) for that to be a useful factor to insurance companies. They certainly aren't using it now to raise anyone's rates.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ha! Finally!

Actually, that's the second time. The first time was way back on page 6. Not that I blame you for not wading that deep into the muck.

 

[triforcharity]

Totally necessary considering the level of gun violence and killing of your 'own' children with your guns. And definitely not illegal in the least. You need to wrap your mind around the concept of a correct interpretation of that crazy 2a.

Incorrect, and not surprising. It's funny that you, a canadian, are attempting to explain the 2nd Amendment to ME, a US Citizen.

 

[monty1]

Incorrect, and not surprising. It's funny that you, a canadian, are attempting to explain the 2nd Amendment to ME, a US Citizen.

No, I am absolutely correct. Americans should be listening to those outside their country that have a grip on the gun violence problem. And it goes further than that, it extends also to the incarceration problem you have with your prison system. Your 2a is being misinterpreted and it's ancient history that just doesn't work in a modern world with modern weapons at too many people's easy disposal.

It's not going to be a total fix for your problem but it would be a start. It could lead to the answer to the problem of way too many handguns too. And it would definitely lead your country in the right direction of having a good close look to what's wrong in the heads of Americans that would allow them to continue to suffer the slaughter of their 'own' children for a start!

Otherwise, let's keep this away from the personal level of attacking me for my opinion and for being a Canadian. You know the right way to do it don't you?

 

[WildCat]

But doesn't it trouble you that the free market insurance industry apparently doesn't think gun owners are a good risk?

If the problem is small, then the risk is low, then the premiums should be affordable.

If the problem is great and the insurance industry doesn't want to touch it, well, that doesn't speak well of gun ownership in the US.

Do tell which types of insurance cover intentionally harmful or criminal acts.

Insurance companies don't cover such risks, because it's a moral hazard. Yet this is exactly what this proposed NY bill is requiring.

This was all explained several times earlier, but I see the anti-gun nuts are being deliberately ignorant again.