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

[thaiboxerken]

Because knives are so much more deadlier than guns.....

It's interesting that, in these gun debates, the anti-gun control advocates want to talk about everything BUT guns.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Because knives are so much more deadlier than guns.....

It's interesting that, in these gun debates, the anti-gun control advocates want to talk about everything BUT guns.

No one has attempted to make the case that knives are deadlier than guns, ken.
Since , apparently, you haven't noticed, this particular debate is not about guns, but about requiring gun owners to obtain insurance against the possibility that they will commit crimes.
What about martial artists? Don't you feel that they should be required to obtain insurance against the possibility that they might use their enhanced martial skills to commit acts of bodily injury against others?

 

[thaiboxerken]

The deadly nature of guns means that they should be insured. It's not about insuring against the possibility that they will be used in crimes, it's about helping to deal with the damages of those crimes.

You have some weird fantasy about martial arts as well. Do you get your information from Kung Fu Theater?

 

[Ziggurat]

The deadly nature of guns means that they should be insured. It's not about insuring against the possibility that they will be used in crimes, it's about helping to deal with the damages of those crimes.

And how does it do that? By taking money from law-abiding and responsible gun owners in order to protect criminal and careless gun owners.

You're actually celebrating the creation of a perverse moral hazard.

 

[Courier]

The deadly nature of guns means that they should be insured....

More people are killed with knives and blunt objects combined, than rifles & shotguns every year.

Will you call for all knives and blunt objects be insured?

 

[thaiboxerken]

And how does it do that? By taking money from law-abiding and responsible gun owners in order to protect criminal and careless gun owners.

You're actually celebrating the creation of a perverse moral hazard.

It takes money and helps victims of gun crimes with that money if/when those crimes happen.

 

[thaiboxerken]

More people are killed with knives and blunt objects combined, than rifles & shotguns every year.

Will you call for all knives and blunt objects be insured?

No. Because guns kill more than all knives and blunt objects combined by a factor of 3 to 4.

 

[triforcharity]

And how does it do that? By taking money from law-abiding and responsible gun owners in order to protect criminal and careless gun owners.

You're actually celebrating the creation of a perverse moral hazard.

Thai (not surprisingly) completely sidestepped one of your previous questions.


Thai, do you support insuring a trained martial artist just in case he decides to go and assault someone?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Thai (not surprisingly) completely sidestepped one of your previous questions.


Thai, do you support insuring a trained martial artist just in case he decides to go and assault someone?

I see no gun control legislation restricting marksmanship, which is a skill. I'm ok with people learning how to shoot. I just think the guns should be restricted. Marksmanship should not be a skill that needs to be insured.

 

[tyr_13]

Because life is dangerous and risky for many reasons including risks a person, every person, decides to take upon themselves, wouldn't it be easier, better, more fair, less restrictive/intrusive on constitutionally protected rights, and already verified constitutional if say, everyone was required to have medical insurance?

Oh, wait...

 

[triforcharity]

I see no gun control legislation restricting marksmanship, which is a skill. I'm ok with people learning how to shoot. I just think the guns should be restricted. Marksmanship should not be a skill that needs to be insured.

Not the question. Please feel free to park the Dodge, it's nice and all, but it's a simple yes or no question.


Do you support requiring someone trained in martial arts to purchase insurance?

 

[triforcharity]

Because life is dangerous and risky for many reasons including risks a person, every person, decides to take upon themselves, wouldn't it be easier, better, more fair, less restrictive/intrusive on constitutionally protected rights, and already verified constitutional if say, everyone was required to have medical insurance?

Oh, wait...

We'll have none of that logic and practical thinking around here!!!

 

[thaiboxerken]

Not the question. Please feel free to park the Dodge, it's nice and all, but it's a simple yes or no question.


Do you support requiring someone trained in martial arts to purchase insurance?

No. Neither do I support someone trained in marksmanship having to purchase insurance.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

I see no gun control legislation restricting marksmanship, which is a skill. I'm ok with people learning how to shoot. I just think the guns should be restricted. Marksmanship should not be a skill that needs to be insured.

And just as a trained marksman uses a gun, a trained martial artists uses his feet, hands and body.
Since it is impossible ( or at least impractical) to separate the skilled user from his weapons (in the case of the martial artists), then there is no meaningful difference.
The courts have long ago established that a trained fighter (boxer, martial artist, etc.) is held to a higher standard, and that his hands and feet can indeed be used as deadly weapons.
Why are you objecting to one deadly weapon being exempted and another subject to stricture? That is special pleading.

 

[Ziggurat]

It takes money and helps victims of gun crimes with that money if/when those crimes happen.

It also protects the perpetrators of crimes, and punishes responsible gun owners. If you simply want society to indemnify the victims of gun violence, then why not do it through general taxes? Why target gun owners specifically? The responsible gun owners haven't done anything wrong, and you've actually insulated the real perpetrators from having to pay for their damages by providing them this insurance.

It's perverse.

 

[Aber]

Why target gun owners specifically? The responsible gun owners haven't done anything wrong,

As individuals, or as a class? Surely as a class they contribute to the supply of guns to those who shouldn't have them?

Also there is the issue of an individual who was previously a a responsible gun owner, who does something irresponsible. Insurance seems is a good fit for this case?

 

[jimbob]

I keep seeing this, and it's absolutely disgusting that I, a lawful, responsible, gun owner, should have to pay for what the IRRESPONSIBLE and criminals do.


This just makes no damn sense at all. None.


Just as soon as you start paying for someone else's DUIs and damage to property from DUI drivers, we'll talk.....

Name another right, as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, that requires a person to pay a fee. I think you'll find you need to jump through many hoops, and possibly stretch things, to get an answer.

This is the nub of the issue.

Because of an accident of history, guns in the US have an anomalously privileged situation compared to other OECD countries.

For the UK there is no issue with requiring insurance for something with such a potential for causing harm.

Many guns are more effective weapons than any blade-based weapon - especially in the hands of someone with minimal training. If you are talking about spree killing, the equation is even more in favour of the gun.

In the US, the number of gun deaths is similar to that caused by automobiles, and automobiles do require insurance, as well as being far more important to most people's lifestyles than guns.

However cars are not protected by the second any amendment to the US constitution. To me as an outsider, I can see that this causes legal complications, but it doesn't add any logical reasons, as the constitution is simply a document that has been subject to modification.

 

[jimbob]

Gun theft from owners as opposed to gun shops seems to be a moderately significant issue:

Intervening in Gun Markets
An Experiment to Assess the Impact of Targeted Gun-Law Messaging

Starting in August 2007, gun buyers initiating transactions on odd-numbered days received a letter signed by prominent law enforcement officials, indicating that law enforcement had a record of their gun purchase and that the gun buyer should properly record future transfers of the gun. The letters arrived during buyers' 10-day waiting periods, before they could legally return to the store to collect their new gun. Subsequent gun records were extracted to assess the letter's effect on legal secondary sales, reports of stolen guns, and recovery of the gun in a crime.

Of those receiving the letter, 1.9% reported their gun stolen during the study period compared to 1.0% for those who did not receive the letter. The percentage of guns reported stolen in these neighborhoods is high, indicating a high rate of true gun theft, a regular practice of using stolen-gun reports to separate the gun buyer from future misuse of the gun, or some blend of both.

Assuming that many these stolen guns are then used for illegal purposes (as opposed to use for innocuous pastimes with illegal weapons) then this is a significant risk that I'd say should be insured against in at least some areas.

 

[jimbob]

Gun theft from owners as opposed to gun shops seems to be a moderately significant issue:

Intervening in Gun Markets
An Experiment to Assess the Impact of Targeted Gun-Law Messaging





Assuming that many these stolen guns are then used for illegal purposes (as opposed to use for innocuous pastimes with illegal weapons) then this is a significant risk that I'd say should be insured against in at least some areas.

Actually it's worse than that in LA:

From the PDF full document

Los Angeles’ 1999 Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative (YGCII) data suggest that a substantial portion of the city’s crime guns (guns used in commission of a crime) (20 percent) go from first retail purchase to use in a crime relatively quickly (ATF, 2002). This finding suggests that a noteworthy portion of California retail sales may be associated with criminal intent. Combined, the YCGII data suggest that Los Angeles has a problem with people acquiring guns from illegal and unregulated sources.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Actually it's worse than that in LA:

From the PDF full document

And you want to apply the statistics given for the 77th Street area of LA to the entire country?
You do understand why they picked that particular area don't you? They didn't just pick it out of a hat.The study was looking at ways of curbing gang violence and chose one of LA worst areas for gang activity.

It's like taking the crime rate of Tottenham and applying it for all of the UK.