It's not the anti-gun nuts being ignorant, it's the gungoons running scared of this because it's the perfect solution that will stop their careless and evil gun nut idiocy.
NY Proposal to Screw Gun Owner's a Little Bit Further
- Thread starter Sabretooth
- Start date
It's not the anti-gun nuts being ignorant, it's the gungoons running scared of this because it's the perfect solution that will stop their careless and evil gun nut idiocy.
Chuck Guiteau
Graduate Poster
Then you should have no problem in providing examples of which types of insurance cover intentionally harmful or criminal acts.
Courier
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,229
Constantly referring to folks who like their guns "gungoons", only causes your opposition to circle the wagons.
Have you ever considered being civil, and showing some respect to those you disagree with?
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
We need a pic of Jar Jar with a tricked out mini-14 or something.
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Your opinion is based from what I can tell, and others have noticed, on your own personal ignorance. Now, I am not attacking you personally, I am attacking your ignorant position. And that is that YOU, a non-US citizen, with no discernible US History or Law education, want to tell ME, a US Citizen, with formal education in (some) history, about MY constitution and how it's applied. That's called ignorance.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Why don't you explain to us what it really means. Feel free to use the correct definitions of large words.
Courier
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,229
You, an admitted Canadian, is saying that life-long judges who are the zenith of the legal world, have misinterpreted Constitutional law....and that a 226 year old law is "ancient" history?
Bro, you need to take a step back cause you're making yourself look very foolish & arogant.
Chuck Guiteau
Graduate Poster
C'mon, monty! Explain to us ignorant and hate filled Americans what the 2nd Amendment really says.
Talk about having fun! This is your big chance to make us all look really dumb, even the Supreme Court.
Only trained stormtroopers of the imperial government should posess assault blasters
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
The argument against gun ownership, or for extreme restrictions, has devolved into elementary trolling, hyperbole, and anti-American rants. Oddly enough, most of it seems to come from a position of little vested interest in reducing gun violence in the USA. For the most part, all the reasonable arguments for additional restrictions on gun ownership are coming from the gun owners themselves.
Last edited:
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
The last desperate appeal of a person left without an argument.
Its especially amusing when they tell us that we are misinterpreting our own laws.
If those gun laws are so well defined there would be no debate at all; not here, not in the US government, not in the courts, nowhere.
The fact that people on this board get so emotional when those gun laws are debated speaks volumes to your own insecurity about those laws.
Now, insurance. As I've said upstream, I can see the flaws in implementing an insurance requirement, though I don't believe the lack of insurance companies being prepared to insure gun owners is the actual problem.
On that point, I would say that perhaps a different perspective on insurance would be appropriate. At the moment the US system seems to view the policy holder as being the sole recipient of cover; in other words, insurance policies are designed to protect the insured person, not the third party. The third party can, of course, sue the insured person if injury is caused and the insurance that person holds would then be used to settle a claim (though the reality is that the insurance may well fall well short of the actual claim or award).
This system does indeed appear to make it only applicable if the insured person has acted within the law; break the law and you're no longer covered.
This raises an interesting question regarding drink driving: if a driver gets a DUI does he/she then find it difficult to get motor insurance? I assume that they do, but if the insurance company isn't actually liable to pay out for any damage caused through the DUI then their actual risk doesn't appear to have increased. If the driver gets another DUI the insurance company still would have no liability because the driver has committed a criminal act.
This leaves the third party who may be injured by the actions of the drunk driver or the irresponsible gun owner without a pot to piss in.
The insurance really should be protecting third parties from the damage caused by irresponsible automobile use or irresponsible gun use.
The point that many have tried to make on this topic is that:
- Guns are dangerous if not handled with care and attention.
- People other than the gun owner can be injured because of this.
- Those injuries have a cost which at the moment society as a whole is picking up.
- The core reason for those costs is the ability of citizens to bear arms
- Therefore the cost of bearing arms should adequately reflect the cost of that right to society as a whole
Whether this cost is met by applying a requirement for insurance (and letting the market decide on just how much risk an individual gun owner poses) or a one off sales tax, it is iniquitous to imagine that weapons do not have costs associated with them over and above the cost of the physical weapon itself.
Last edited:
Chuck Guiteau
Graduate Poster
An interesting theory. Maybe we could get some help from our UK cousins.
How much do you pay per year for knife insurance (you know, in the event you decide to rob or stab someone with your knife)?
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,210
No it doesn't, even a small number of irresponsible gun owners is too many and action is needed to reduce that number and save lives.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,210
So the solution is for the USA to start enforcing existing laws and beef up security for guns.
Since that is not happening, it just further increases my view there is no hope for the USA in dealing with its gun problem.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,210
Are you referring to the NY proposal, or the proposal for insurance like car insurance myself and others have been proposing or both?
Should you have to purchase a million dollar knife insurance policy because of the knife crime problem in Glasgow? What if some law abiding careful folks are already at the limit of their budget? Why notblame criminals for criminal acts instead of going after the decent folks?
First I want to reiterate that while I once thought insurance could provide some solution to gun issues in the US, I no longer tink so and I think this legislation is pretty bad on its face. That being said . . .
Most life insurance covers suicide so long as the insurance was bought some time before the suicide such that it was not insurance fraud.
Also, corporate liability policies cover criminal acts by agents of the corporation, but not typically by the principals. So, if an HP employee kills someone at work the insurance kicks in even if it was an intentional criminal act, but if the CEO commits fraud against the SEC knowingly that would be tougher to find coverage for. There may be an O&E policy that provides for legal defense funds, but I don't think it would cover the entire damage.
Insurance is complex and odd. Proof of the dark arts can be found in insurance law.
I agree. The moral hazard of such insurance would mitigate any advances in gun storage requirements or gun safety training.
I used to hate the labels, but there does seem to be a spectrum developing and labels may be helpful along that spectrum:
NO GUNS<->Limited Guns<-> Guns only for RGOs <-> Guns for Most <-> GUNS FOR ALL 2A!
It is easy to put labels on folks, Monty1 seems to be a No Gunner, while Nessie more of a Limited Guns type who would be happy seeing the US move towards RGOs. And lets face it, I left RGOs as vague as possible to capture the most members because that is where I see myself: we need to limit gun ownership to those who can actually take responsibility for gun ownership. How we do that is the proverbial devil of the details, but I really do think most Americans agree that owning a gun is a big responsibility and failing to take that responsibility seriously can easily lead to death.
On the flip side there are a few Guns for all folks here, but not many. Maybe MaGZ and Courier, although Courier has said he is willing to see some restrictions, so it is more likely he is in the Guns for most or RGO group. There are far more in the guns for most group, which I would describe as: you can have a gun unless you have a felony conviction or something similar and the restrictions can not impact the rest of us in any way. Xulld seems to be the primary example of someone who is so afraid that any regulation will make it impossible for him to freely exercise his 2A rights, but still thinks felons should not have guns.
But the reality is that any restrictions will impact the rest of us, so why not strive to limit gun ownership to those who are willing to take responsibility for their gun ownership. (See, I set up a funnel to move people from one imaginary pocket to the next. Good work, no?)
Anyway, I get that when you say AG you mean folks like Monty1 and some may lump Nessie and BenBurch in as well, and maybe me. But there really is a continuum and most of us try hard not to lump you in with MaGZ.
In fact, I think most of those participating in this debate would like to see gun ownership limited to RGOs, we just don't know the best way to do that. Some would err on the side of making gun ownership easy while others would err on the side of making gun ownership hard. Finding the balance will be the hard part. The sad thing is that while most americans may agree, this will never be the conversation at the political level. Sucks for us.
Most life insurance covers suicide so long as the insurance was bought some time before the suicide such that it was not insurance fraud.
Also, corporate liability policies cover criminal acts by agents of the corporation, but not typically by the principals. So, if an HP employee kills someone at work the insurance kicks in even if it was an intentional criminal act, but if the CEO commits fraud against the SEC knowingly that would be tougher to find coverage for. There may be an O&E policy that provides for legal defense funds, but I don't think it would cover the entire damage.
Insurance is complex and odd. Proof of the dark arts can be found in insurance law.
I agree. The moral hazard of such insurance would mitigate any advances in gun storage requirements or gun safety training.
I used to hate the labels, but there does seem to be a spectrum developing and labels may be helpful along that spectrum:
NO GUNS<->Limited Guns<-> Guns only for RGOs <-> Guns for Most <-> GUNS FOR ALL 2A!
It is easy to put labels on folks, Monty1 seems to be a No Gunner, while Nessie more of a Limited Guns type who would be happy seeing the US move towards RGOs. And lets face it, I left RGOs as vague as possible to capture the most members because that is where I see myself: we need to limit gun ownership to those who can actually take responsibility for gun ownership. How we do that is the proverbial devil of the details, but I really do think most Americans agree that owning a gun is a big responsibility and failing to take that responsibility seriously can easily lead to death.
On the flip side there are a few Guns for all folks here, but not many. Maybe MaGZ and Courier, although Courier has said he is willing to see some restrictions, so it is more likely he is in the Guns for most or RGO group. There are far more in the guns for most group, which I would describe as: you can have a gun unless you have a felony conviction or something similar and the restrictions can not impact the rest of us in any way. Xulld seems to be the primary example of someone who is so afraid that any regulation will make it impossible for him to freely exercise his 2A rights, but still thinks felons should not have guns.
But the reality is that any restrictions will impact the rest of us, so why not strive to limit gun ownership to those who are willing to take responsibility for their gun ownership. (See, I set up a funnel to move people from one imaginary pocket to the next. Good work, no?)
Anyway, I get that when you say AG you mean folks like Monty1 and some may lump Nessie and BenBurch in as well, and maybe me. But there really is a continuum and most of us try hard not to lump you in with MaGZ.
In fact, I think most of those participating in this debate would like to see gun ownership limited to RGOs, we just don't know the best way to do that. Some would err on the side of making gun ownership easy while others would err on the side of making gun ownership hard. Finding the balance will be the hard part. The sad thing is that while most americans may agree, this will never be the conversation at the political level. Sucks for us.
Oh gawd, you got me Chuck, bang to rights and no mistake.
I was so hopin' you wouldn't play the knife gambit, but yous too smart for me.
Though I would 'ave **** me pants if you'd asked about cricket bat insurance. oh lummy.
Still, gotta hand it to ya guvn'r, no one can makes an argument comparing apples and turnips like a gun rights proponent can.
'ats on, about turn. Quick march........