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

[Nessie]

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.....

Lets talk. I pay car and house insurance, which covers accidents many of which are people being irresponsible. Then for DUIs part of my insurance goes into a fund to pay for the damage drink drivers do to other people's cars and property. That fund also pays towards innocents in accidents with uninsured drivers so they get cover.

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.

There is no other right like the gun right. So no other right needs insurance, only the gun right because of the damage and costs to society as a whole. You seem happy for non gun owners to pay towards the damage done by guns. You expect them to pay towards a right they don't even exercise.

 

[Nessie]

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.

You are saying that as if the USA does not have a gun problem. Are you blind to the USA's gun problem? Do you realise it has a gun problem?

The special pleading comes from there being a particular problem, one which existing laws are not solving, so it is hardly surprising people look to other means.

 

[Nessie]

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.

There are other versions of insurance which would not do the above.

My proposal would be for the gun owner to insure their guns for the following. Accidental discharge and damage or injury caused. Unauthorised use by another person who has permission to be in the house/car where the gun is being kept when it it is not in the possession of the gun owner. Theft, such that if stolen the gun owner claims to get a new gun off insurance. Public liability whereby if the gun owner uses their gun and shoots another in inappropriate circumstances, they have to pay out damages and costs to the shot party to cover their medical bills etc.

The above means when a legally held gun causes damage, the owner has to pay. That would act as an incentive to properly handle and secure legally held guns.

No pay outs to criminals. Irresponsible people will see their premiums rising such they may not be able to get a gun which is good. Responsible people will have lower premiums, which is good. Gun owners help to contribute more to the damage they do, which is good.

 

[jimbob]

There are other versions of insurance which would not do the above.

My proposal would be for the gun owner to insure their guns for the following. Accidental discharge and damage or injury caused. Unauthorised use by another person who has permission to be in the house/car where the gun is being kept when it it is not in the possession of the gun owner. Theft, such that if stolen the gun owner claims to get a new gun off insurance. Public liability whereby if the gun owner uses their gun and shoots another in inappropriate circumstances, they have to pay out damages and costs to the shot party to cover their medical bills etc.

The above means when a legally held gun causes damage, the owner has to pay. That would act as an incentive to properly handle and secure legally held guns.

No pay outs to criminals. Irresponsible people will see their premiums rising such they may not be able to get a gun which is good. Responsible people will have lower premiums, which is good. Gun owners help to contribute more to the damage they do, which is good.

It is almost as if you are treating guns as having a similar potential to cause damage as cars, with a model based on UK mandatory car insurance...

 

[Nessie]

It is almost as if you are treating guns as having a similar potential to cause damage as cars, with a model based on UK mandatory car insurance...

Yes, but also insuring because of the cost of damage, which is why we insure our houses.

Apparently a gun shot injury is $432,000.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambr...and-violence-cost-every-american-564-in-2010/

So gun owners should have to insure for that cost when the guns that are their responsibility and in their control are involved. I do not see why non gun owners should have to contribute to the cost as non car drivers do not pay for road accidents (I accept there will be some knock on costs, but they don't make much of a contribution).

 

[jimbob]

It is almost as if you are treating guns as having a similar potential to cause damage as cars, with a model based on UK mandatory car insurance...

Yes, but also insuring because of the cost of damage, which is why we insure our houses.

Apparently a gun shot injury is $432,000.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambr...and-violence-cost-every-american-564-in-2010/

So gun owners should have to insure for that cost when the guns that are their responsibility and in their control are involved. I do not see why non gun owners should have to contribute to the cost as non car drivers do not pay for road accidents (I accept there will be some knock on costs, but they don't make much of a contribution).

Indeed, I see it that guns have an oddly privileged position in the US simply due to an accident of history.

 

[jimbob]

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.

Even for the whole US, gun thefts are significant (500k in 1994) so a rate of 0.2% pa

ETA: because of the pareto of gun ownership this translates into a 0.9% gun owning households experiencing gun theft per year.

Thefts. A major theme highlighted in a 1986 survey of incarcerated felons was that theft was an important means of obtaining firearms for those with criminal intentions: 32 percent of surveyed felons had stolen their most recently acquired handgun.[9]

Based on the NSPOF, an estimated 0.9 percent of all gun-owning households (269,000) experienced the theft of one or more firearms during 1994. About 211,000 handguns and 382,000 long guns were stolen in noncommercial thefts that year, for a total of 593,000 stolen firearms. Those estimates are subject to considerable sampling error but are
consistent with earlier estimates of about half a million guns stolen annually.[10]

from
MENU TITLE: Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms.

Series: NIJ Research in Brief
Published: May 1997
20 pages

Slightly more than half of all privately owned firearms were stored unlocked; 16 percent of firearms were stored unlocked and loaded.

In a lot of cases inadequate care is taken with looking after firearms.

Also, non-responsible people are more likely to have guns:

Those who had been arrested for nontraffic offenses were more
likely to own firearms (37 percent compared to 25 percent in the general population).

 

[thaiboxerken]

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.

Hands and feet can be deadly weapons, but training doesn't make them so. You should stop getting your martial arts information from movies.

Martial arts is a skill, marksmanship is a skill. I have no problem with people learning those skills.

 

[uk_dave]

No one has attempted to make the case that knives are deadlier than guns, ken.

Some people are...

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

And no, it's not just about commiting crimes, it's also about covering for accidents.

Responsible gun owners on this board have posted in other threads about careless gun owners who have accidents. Renaissance Biker posted that he didn't like to go hunting with others because of the stupidity of some gun owners and then cited an example of a gun owner shooting his own foot.

There seems to be a strange lack of self awareness with these anecdotes. It very much speaks of the responsible gun owners disdain for those who are careless for guns, and yet no acknowledgement that perhaps something should be done to prevent such stupid people from having a weapon in the first place.

The foot shooter (I assume) didn't receive any criminal sanction for his stupidity. I wonder if he would have if it had been someone else's foot he had accidentally shot.

And if it had been someone else who had got injured and it would be considered a crime, what then for the costs incurred by the injured party? Medical, loss of earnings perhaps, damage to clothing and general distress? Who pays if the gun owner has no ability to pay if he is sued, or if being sued means he loses everything?

Insurance would cover such an accident.

Or better still, make the right to bear arms applicable only if the owner completes a proper training course so that stupid accidents are avoided, proper gun handling is taught and applied and a general fund is available to pay for the consequences when on the few (hopefully) occasions stupid things still happen, it's not the general tax payer who foots the bill.

I know the US has victim compensation schemes and these overall are pretty well funded. If memory serves right they receive funds from the property and monies seized from criminals. But they also have caps (again going from memory) of around $20,000 in some states.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

There are other versions of insurance which would not do the above.

My proposal would be for the gun owner to insure their guns for the following. Accidental discharge and damage or injury caused. Unauthorised use by another person who has permission to be in the house/car where the gun is being kept when it it is not in the possession of the gun owner. Theft, such that if stolen the gun owner claims to get a new gun off insurance. Public liability whereby if the gun owner uses their gun and shoots another in inappropriate circumstances, they have to pay out damages and costs to the shot party to cover their medical bills etc.

The above means when a legally held gun causes damage, the owner has to pay. That would act as an incentive to properly handle and secure legally held guns.

No pay outs to criminals. Irresponsible people will see their premiums rising such they may not be able to get a gun which is good. Responsible people will have lower premiums, which is good. Gun owners help to contribute more to the damage they do, which is good.

The point of insurance is that the owner does not have to pay, the insurance company does. This cost is passed on (in the form of increased rates and premiums) to others who are responsible, law abiding citizens.
As to the rest,a typical homeowners policy already covers most of them, and the civil courts (and sometimes the criminal courts, in the case of criminal negligence) cover the rest.
The true purpose of the proposed "insurance" is not protecting the public welfare, it is to perform an end run around the right to keep and bear arms by providing what in essence is a poll tax.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Responsible gun owners on this board have posted in other threads about careless gun owners who have accidents. Renaissance Biker posted that he didn't like to go hunting with others because of the stupidity of some gun owners and then cited an example of a gun owner shooting his own foot.

There seems to be a strange lack of self awareness with these anecdotes. It very much speaks of the responsible gun owners disdain for those who are careless for guns, and yet no acknowledgement that perhaps something should be done to prevent such stupid people from having a weapon in the first place.

this is my primary frustration with this conversation. As a responsible gun owner I don't want idiots out there ruining my ability to continue owning a gun. If we don't do something something will be done to us. Hiding behind the 2A is just stupid and cowardly, we should make other gun owners live up to the some standards.

The foot shooter (I assume) didn't receive any criminal sanction for his stupidity. I wonder if he would have if it had been someone else's foot he had accidentally shot.

And if it had been someone else who had got injured and it would be considered a crime, what then for the costs incurred by the injured party? Medical, loss of earnings perhaps, damage to clothing and general distress? Who pays if the gun owner has no ability to pay if he is sued, or if being sued means he loses everything?

Insurance would cover such an accident.

Our vice President shot his lawyer in the face "accidentally" while bird hunting. I say "accidentally" because the guy was a lawyer and who hasn't wanted to shoot a couple of those, even if they are hunting buddies.

No charges were filed and I have no idea who paid the medical bills between these two very wealthy men and their respective insurance policies.

Or better still, make the right to bear arms applicable only if the owner completes a proper training course so that stupid accidents are avoided, proper gun handling is taught and applied and a general fund is available to pay for the consequences when on the few (hopefully) occasions stupid things still happen, it's not the general tax payer who foots the bill.

I think this is what many people see when they propose a gun owner licensing system.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Some people are...

I can't speak for the ethereal "some people", but I haven't. I brought up the subject of knives in the UK only in conjunction with the subject of insuring an individual for his/her possible criminal intent, which the law in question presupposes.
Considering that it is pretty much the weapon of choice in the UK, it is a valid comparison, irrespective of the amount of bandwidth that has been wasted on attempting to divert attention away from my post.
The read I get is that the UK citizens don't seem to think that insuring themselves for a presupposed intent to use a knife unlawfully is such a good idea.

And no, it's not just about commiting crimes, it's also about covering for accidents.

Responsible gun owners on this board have posted in other threads about careless gun owners who have accidents. Renaissance Biker posted that he didn't like to go hunting with others because of the stupidity of some gun owners and then cited an example of a gun owner shooting his own foot.

There seems to be a strange lack of self awareness with these anecdotes. It very much speaks of the responsible gun owners disdain for those who are careless for guns, and yet no acknowledgement that perhaps something should be done to prevent such stupid people from having a weapon in the first place.

The foot shooter (I assume) didn't receive any criminal sanction for his stupidity. I wonder if he would have if it had been someone else's foot he had accidentally shot.

And if it had been someone else who had got injured and it would be considered a crime, what then for the costs incurred by the injured party? Medical, loss of earnings perhaps, damage to clothing and general distress? Who pays if the gun owner has no ability to pay if he is sued, or if being sued means he loses everything?

Insurance would cover such an accident.

Homeowners insurance in the US already covers accidents in the home. The civil courts are also open to anyone claiming a loss through the negligence of another, and in the case of gross negligence the criminal courts can step in, with the ability to order restitution. This, in addition to any victims compensation funds that may be available.
You may not be aware of the court system here in the US, but the authors of this bill are. And they were the ones who specifically wrote in the criminal clause which is objectionable ( as I have mentioned) because it presupposes that a law abiding citizen is contemplating an unlawful act by his/her mere possession of a firearm.

Or better still, make the right to bear arms applicable only if the owner completes a proper training course so that stupid accidents are avoided, proper gun handling is taught and applied and a general fund is available to pay for the consequences when on the few (hopefully) occasions stupid things still happen, it's not the general tax payer who foots the bill.

It is an inherent right. The 2nd Amendment does not grant the right, it prohibits the government from interfering with the right. There is a difference here that it does not appear you are aware of (no disrespect intended).
If you only target people who own firearms then it is an infringement of that right, no different in purpose than a poll tax, or a literacy requirement in the case of the 15th Amendment.
The only way to do this without targeting a specific class of citizenry would be to require that all citizens purchase the insurance, whether they currently own a firearm or not.
And I don't think you're going to get much support for that, even assuming the SCOTUS would not rule that unConstitutional.
That being said, a requirement for training would not be unConstitutional as long as it is to "bear", not to "keep" firearms. We do this now, in the case of CCP's. Personally, I favor a National Carry Permit, which, just as the State CCP's, would require certification before issuance.
Just as an aside, current CCP holders are statistically less likely to commit a crime, or have an accident, than any other class of citizen in the US by a huge margin.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Our vice President shot his lawyer in the face "accidentally" while bird hunting. I say "accidentally" because the guy was a lawyer and who hasn't wanted to shoot a couple of those, even if they are hunting buddies.

Let's not forget our current VP, who's advice was to let fly with a couple of barrels of buckshot to warn off the evildoers.

 

[Cylinder]

Hiding behind the 2A is just stupid and cowardly, we should make other gun owners live up to the some standards.

There is nothing stupid or cowardly about making the government abide the same rules that they enforce. They are the servants. We are the masters.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Let's not forget our current VP, who's advice was to let fly with a couple of barrels of buckshot to warn off the evildoers.

I sometimes why anyone would want to be VP. Palpatine obviously couldn't let anyone else get the ear of Bush, but Biden has just been set up as the butt of jokes.

There is nothing stupid or cowardly about making the government abide the same rules that they enforce. They are the servants. We are the masters.

Yes, and we as the masters should demand that the rest of our ranks live up to some standard. The NRA has set it up so that the RGOs are afraid of the government, where it should be the RGOs using the government, our government, against irresponsible gun owners. If we are the masters, lets do something useful with that power.

If it is us against them, I don't want to be grouped in with the idiots who shoot their own foot while hunting, or the guy who shoots his child while getting into his truck, or the idiot who shot the kid who pulls into the wrong driveway, or the mother of a special needs child who leaves her guns unsecured, or the grandparents who leave a stolen gun unsecured. I am against those people. And I can't comprehend why other responsible gun owners are more afraid of the government than they are of being grouped with irresponsible gun owners.

 

[Sabretooth]

This thread isn't exactly about the NY SAFE Act...but since it's the most currently active, I'll put this here as well...

An injunction is being attempted as of 1 MAR 13. The courts have told the NY Legislator to show just cause that this law doesn't violate the NY State Constitution and they have until 29 APR 13 to do so:

http://www.lohud.com/article/20130301/NEWS/303010054/N-Y-must-defend-new-gun-law-court-March-11

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Hands and feet can be deadly weapons, but training doesn't make them so. You should stop getting your martial arts information from movies.
Martial arts is a skill, marksmanship is a skill. I have no problem with people learning those skills.

You have no way of knowing where I get my information from, therefore that is nothing more than a mere personal attack.I'll consider the source, though, and let it slide.
Before making sarcastic remarks like that, you would be well advised to do some research. The courts have long ago established that a trained martial artist can be held to a higher standard, than an untrained individual.
State v. Basting, 572 N.W.2d 281, 282 (Minn. 1997)
Dixon v. State, 603 So.2d 570, 571 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
State v. Broten, 176 N.W.2d 827, 828 (Iowa 1970)

The following is from a white paper by attorney Lisa Fearon regarding this very subject:

In light of this discussion regarding the deadly or dangerous hands and feet of ordinary individuals, it is important to consider how a martial artist‘s situation may be unique. Given a martial artist‘s special training and ability to inflict a blow using a great degree of force, it seems natural to classify the hands and feet of martial artists as weapons if they are used to inflict serious bodily harm. Courts may be making a fatal error when they label an altercation
involving only hands and feet as an ―ordinary fistfight‖ when a martial artist is involved.
Although any person can utilize his or her hands or feet so as to inflict harm upon another person, an experienced martial artist is in a unique position in terms of this ability.

And while Ms Fearon was actually making a case against passing a law requiring martial artists hands and feet to be classified as deadly weapons, the fact that the courts already may consider them as such places them in the same context as firearms in regards to a theoretical requirement for insurance.
Further in her conclusion, she writes:

As a matter of theory, the hands and feet of a martial artist, able to inflict great harm upon another person, should certainly be classified as dangerous or deadly weapons if they are so used.

You need to understand that I'm not making a case for requiring martial artist to obtain insurance based on the presumption that they are more likely to commit a criminal act than anyone else. I am using it as a comparison to test the theory behind the current topic of firearms insurance which does make that presumption.
You can't have it both ways and apply the law equally. If one presupposes intent then the other must as well.

 

[uk_dave]

I can't speak for the ethereal "some people", but I haven't.

Of course not, you merely stated that "No one has attempted to make the case that knives are deadlier than guns". The ethereal 'no one'

I brought up the subject of knives in the UK only in conjunction with the subject of insuring an individual for his/her possible criminal intent, which the law in question presupposes.
Considering that it is pretty much the weapon of choice in the UK, it is a valid comparison, irrespective of the amount of bandwidth that has been wasted on attempting to divert attention away from my post.
The read I get is that the UK citizens don't seem to think that insuring themselves for a presupposed intent to use a knife unlawfully is such a good idea.

Apparently you like to ignore posts which don't comply with your preconceived notions.

I stated I would have no problem with an insurance requirement relating to knives, because, in my opinion, the risk I pose as an owner of knives would be so minuscule as to be virtually negligible and I would, therefore, expect my premiums to reflect this.

But of course, that really doesn't help your argument, so you ignore it.

Homeowners insurance in the US already covers accidents in the home. The civil courts are also open to anyone claiming a loss through the negligence of another, and in the case of gross negligence the criminal courts can step in, with the ability to order restitution. This, in addition to any victims compensation funds that may be available.

Suing someone is only any good if they have anything worth having.
Victims compensation funds would provide a useful way of covering the costs of damage caused by guns, and a suitable funding system financed by a hefty sin tax on new weapon and ammunition purchases would make these payouts proportional to the actual costs people face when injured by gun misuse.

You may not be aware of the court system here in the US, but the authors of this bill are. And they were the ones who specifically wrote in the criminal clause which is objectionable ( as I have mentioned) because it presupposes that a law abiding citizen is contemplating an unlawful act by his/her mere possession of a firearm.

I still query how motor insurance deals with the criminal offence of a DUI in the US. If you cause injury to a third party while drunk at the wheel, does the insurance company wash it's hands of the whole thing and the third party is left swinging in the breeze?

A more equitable situation would be for insurance to cover even 'criminal' gun use (not gun use by criminals) and then, after the irresponsible gun owner has paid their fine or done their time in pokey, they are not allowed to have a weapon (their 2A right is infringed). If the irresponsible gun owner accidentally injures someone he/she may lose their licence for a period but when it's reinstated (preferably after mandatory gun classes) their insurance will be sky high for any weapon they purchase own.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

I sometimes why anyone would want to be VP. Palpatine obviously couldn't let anyone else get the ear of Bush, but Biden has just been set up as the butt of jokes.

As was Dan Quayle. In Biden's case, however, he went to great lengths to explain his theory that a semi-automatic rifle was not needed when he could just blast away with his trusty double barrel. When I watched him say this, I could not believe my ears.
First, he usues the "no one needs a nuclear weapon" theory (not his words, but the philosophy is the same), even though he well knows the law regarding this, then, with a straight face, he tells "Kate" that he's told his wife to just lean out the Double barrel and blast away.
Here's the clip from YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv63D6hJU_Y
He's not being quoted out of context, or subjected to any editing.
It's thinking like this that needs to be addressed more than semi-auoto's and hi-cap magazines.

Yes, and we as the masters should demand that the rest of our ranks live up to some standard. The NRA has set it up so that the RGOs are afraid of the government, where it should be the RGOs using the government, our government, against irresponsible gun owners. If we are the masters, lets do something useful with that power.

If it is us against them, I don't want to be grouped in with the idiots who shoot their own foot while hunting, or the guy who shoots his child while getting into his truck, or the idiot who shot the kid who pulls into the wrong driveway, or the mother of a special needs child who leaves her guns unsecured, or the grandparents who leave a stolen gun unsecured. I am against those people. And I can't comprehend why other responsible gun owners are more afraid of the government than they are of being grouped with irresponsible gun owners.

I'm not overly worried about Wayne LaPierre. He's already alienated enough of the rank and file members of the NRA that I expect his days as the Glorious Leader are soon to be at an end.
I do worry about a government that uses anecdotal examples ( tragic as they might be) to propound an incremental assault on my right to keep and bear arms.
Had the current proposals any demonstrative merit, I wouldn't feel this way.
Worse, while demanding new more restrictive laws (that ultimately affect law abiding citizens much more than criminals) the government doesn't even bother to enforce the laws already on the books.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/...gun-hearing-youre-wrong-on-background-checks/
Sen Graham makes a valid point here. If Commissioner Flynn had been prosecuting convicted felons for violating the law to begin with, instead of writing them off as "paper chases", then there would be less crime to occupy his limited resources.
A very small number of people, statistically, are responsible for a very large amount of the crime in this country. Having a slam dunk federal case to throw at 80,000 of them ( should the BATF, the AG, and Commissioners like Flynn bother to avail themselves of the opportunity) could not help but to have a dramatic effect in lowering the violent crime rate.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You have no way of knowing where I get my information from, therefore that is nothing more than a mere personal attack.I'll consider the source, though, and let it slide.
Before making sarcastic remarks like that, you would be well advised to do some research. The courts have long ago established that a trained martial artist can be held to a higher standard, than an untrained individual.
State v. Basting, 572 N.W.2d 281, 282 (Minn. 1997)
Dixon v. State, 603 So.2d 570, 571 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
State v. Broten, 176 N.W.2d 827, 828 (Iowa 1970)

The following is from a white paper by attorney Lisa Fearon regarding this very subject:

In light of this discussion regarding the deadly or dangerous hands and feet of ordinary individuals, it is important to consider how a martial artist‘s situation may be unique. Given a martial artist‘s special training and ability to inflict a blow using a great degree of force, it seems natural to classify the hands and feet of martial artists as weapons if they are used to inflict serious bodily harm. Courts may be making a fatal error when they label an altercation
involving only hands and feet as an ―ordinary fistfight‖ when a martial artist is involved.
Although any person can utilize his or her hands or feet so as to inflict harm upon another person, an experienced martial artist is in a unique position in terms of this ability.

And while Ms Fearon was actually making a case against passing a law requiring martial artists hands and feet to be classified as deadly weapons, the fact that the courts already may consider them as such places them in the same context as firearms in regards to a theoretical requirement for insurance.
Further in her conclusion, she writes:

As a matter of theory, the hands and feet of a martial artist, able to inflict great harm upon another person, should certainly be classified as dangerous or deadly weapons if they are so used.

You need to understand that I'm not making a case for requiring martial artist to obtain insurance based on the presumption that they are more likely to commit a criminal act than anyone else. I am using it as a comparison to test the theory behind the current topic of firearms insurance which does make that presumption.
You can't have it both ways and apply the law equally. If one presupposes intent then the other must as well.

Yes, hands and feed of ANY person is classified as dangerous or deadly IF they are so used. It doesn't matter if they know martial arts or not. Or, are you asserting that merely having a black-belt in a martial arts makes one's hands and feet deadly? To presuppose that martial arts training makes ones hands and feet deadly is one of ignorance of reality. For you to bring up individual State cases is silly, as other States have no such precedence.

A gun is a weapon, one that can be stolen. A weapon that can be trafficked, sold and given to criminals.

Martial arts is akin to marksmanship. I don't see a need to regulate these skills.
Melee weapons are akin to firearms. These weapons should be regulated.