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

Chuck Guiteau said:
Looks like apples to apples to me.
Unless you want to make the case that there are no violent crimes committed with knives in the UK.
If, OTOH, you do have a problem with robberies, home invasions, etc. by people who use a knife as a weapon, then why don't you require people who own knives to purchase insurance against using them for criminal purposes? That is exactly what the proposed legislation involves.
Click to expand...

I take it then you would be perfectly happy to surrender your guns and have knives instead, right?

After all, it's apples with apples.

:rolleyes:

And on the subject of UK legislation, try looking up laws regarding ownership of knives and, more importantly, the carrying of knives. Insurance starts to become irrelevant when the majority of people own knives but only a small minority would ever have one on their person in the street or have one in a vehicle. And the law looks harshly upon anyone found in possession of a knife who cannot give a good reason as to why they should have it with them (for example work - which would then be covered by a public liability insurance)

Apply those laws to your situation regarding guns and insurance would be irrelevant there too.

But since you don't and since the ability to move a projectile at great speed sufficient to cause great harm and damage over a long distance is the sole purpose of a gun, then trying to compare guns in the US to knives anywhere else in the civilised world is pointless.
 
Last edited:
uk_dave said:
But since you don't and since the ability to move a projectile at great speed sufficient to cause great harm and damage over a long distance is the sole purpose of a gun, then trying to compare guns in the US to knives anywhere else in the civilised world is pointless.
Click to expand...

You keep making distinctions which don't actually matter to the logic of your argument. For example, why should the range at which damage is done be intrinsically related to the need for insurance? That doesn't actually make any logical sense.
 
Ziggurat said:
You keep making distinctions which don't actually matter to the logic of your argument. For example, why should the range at which damage is done be intrinsically related to the need for insurance? That doesn't actually make any logical sense.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

So an idiot playing with a knife cuts himself in one scenario

An idiot playing with a gun shots through a window and hits a passerby in another scenario.

You seriously think the fact that guns cause damage at a distance isn't relevant?
 
uk_dave said:
Seriously?

So an idiot playing with a knife cuts himself in one scenario

An idiot playing with a gun shots through a window and hits a passerby in another scenario.

You seriously think the fact that guns cause damage at a distance isn't relevant?
Click to expand...

What you're talking about is a differential in the risk. The range may be a factor in that risk difference, but it's the risk difference (the TOTAL risk difference of all risk factors) which actually matters.

But I don't recall you ever putting forth an argument for why there's a particular risk threshold that requires insurance versus a threshold which does not, let alone why guns are above that threshold and knives are not. A without such a risk threshold, the difference in risk doesn't actually matter either.

So: what's the risk threshold that requires insurance, why is that the correct threshold, and can you prove that guns are above that threshold and knives are below it? That is the logical burden of what you're trying to do with your argument, but what you've been trying (making all these distinctions like range) don't actually fulfill that burden.
 
More fun with Krazy Joe:
tumblr_mgsh3pcLrm1r2mfhgo1_400.gif.pagespeed.ce.a3LLgszf-W_thumb.gif
405x600xBiden-Shoot-copy-405x600.jpg.pagespeed.ic.parvro56vx_thumb.jpg
 
On another thread, a poster on this forum, a responsible gun owner described how he would unload his weapon when climbing over a gate or fence because there's always the chance (risk) of something getting in to the trigger guard causing the weapon to fire.

If he was climbing the gate or fence with just a knife in his hand, what risk would he pose to anyone but himself?

Guns cause harm at a distance which knives do not. Insurance for knives, especially in a society where possession of knives without good reason can also be a criminal offence is irrelevant.

For the record I no longer support the notion of public liability insurance for guns, but I believe some other measures are necessary
 
uk_dave said:
Guns cause harm at a distance which knives do not.
Click to expand...

We've already established that. But it fails to answer my question, and it fails to meet the logical burden of the argument in favor of gun insurance but not knife insurance. Recall that the proposed mandatory insurance here would cover intentional criminal action. Even if we conclude that knives pose zero risk of accidental harm to others and guns pose nonzero risk of accidental harm to others, that does not suffice to logically distinguish between them, because knives can be (and are) used for intentional harm of others. Which leads us back to the only possible distinction being a risk threshold that guns meet but knives do not, but nobody is putting forth an argument for such a threshold.
 
I agree with Zig. If you're going to carry a concealed knife, it should be insured.
 
Ziggurat said:
We've already established that. But it fails to answer my question, and it fails to meet the logical burden of the argument in favor of gun insurance but not knife insurance. Recall that the proposed mandatory insurance here would cover intentional criminal action. Even if we conclude that knives pose zero risk of accidental harm to others and guns pose nonzero risk of accidental harm to others, that does not suffice to logically distinguish between them, because knives can be (and are) used for intentional harm of others. Which leads us back to the only possible distinction being a risk threshold that guns meet but knives do not, but nobody is putting forth an argument for such a threshold.
Click to expand...

Because a gun has the potential to do greater harm to a person than a knife
Because a gun can harm a person when they are not within reach of the armed person
Because a gun can harm a person when they are actively running away from the armed person

And if you want to counter this by imagining scenarios where knives are thrown or a particularly big knife is used then fine: make the right to bear arms equivalent to the right to bear a knife and have all guns single shot only.

The knife comparison sucks as a pro gun argument.
 
Giz said:
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?
Click to expand...

I don't think the NY proposal is workable. I would instead like to see insurance for gun owners to cover what they are responsible for, such as accidental shootings, inappropriate use of their gun and safe storage.

So if a kid gets hold of their gun and shoots someone, the gun owner can be sued and the insurance is there to cover them. Or if their gun is stolen, they get a pay out to cover the theft, but premiums rise, so encouraging more secure storage. Or if they run out and shoot a John Travolta look a like claiming home invasion, they can be sued.

Its about getting gun owners to help pay for the damage the irresponsible ones cause.
 
Dr. Keith said:
.......

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.

.......
Click to expand...

I would put myself in the Guns only for RGOs camp as I see no reason or point in banning any type of gun for the law abiding.
 
Chuck Guiteau said:
So(and please correct me if I'm wrong), you're actually saying that any number of irresponsible acts by gun owners is too many.
Do you apply this philosophy to everything, or do you just single out firearms?
I'm beginning to think that your protest has less to do with saving lives than with banning those evil-scary-bangy-things.
Click to expand...

No I say any number of irresponsible acts with cars, parachutes, fridges, donkeys, small pieces of string and fish is also too many. :)

As to singling out firearms, I say the pro-gun lobby are doing a fine job of that by making firearms not subject to very much active, pursued legislation at all so that they get a free run to use a lethal object with few restrictions.

Yet other deadly objects such as cars, halberds and tigers are subject to more strict and better enforced regulations.

I want a level playing field.
 
uk_dave said:
Because a gun has the potential to do greater harm to a person than a knife
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Both can kill. Both can permanently cripple. There is absolutely no important difference in potential. There is only a difference in risk. But you never addressed the logical requirement of basing your argument on a risk difference.

Because a gun can harm a person when they are not within reach of the armed person
Click to expand...

Again, risk. You continue to fail to address it in any meaningful way. Simply listing factors which affect risk does not suffice.

Because a gun can harm a person when they are actively running away from the armed person
Click to expand...

This is also not true.

And if you want to counter this by imagining scenarios where knives are thrown or a particularly big knife is used then fine: make the right to bear arms equivalent to the right to bear a knife and have all guns single shot only.
Click to expand...

Complete non-sequitor. We were talking about the logic of insurance requirements.

The knife comparison sucks as a pro gun argument.
Click to expand...

I don't think you even understand the comparison. You certainly don't seem to understand your own argument on anything other than the most superficial terms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom