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

[Chuck Guiteau]

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.

Maybe I missed a post. It's certainly possible as this is growing into a large thread. Could you point out some of those people who have claimed that knives are deadlier than guns?

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.

I didn't ignore it, I simply don't believe it. The UK has a very high crime rate. The per capita incident of violent assaults and robberies is one of the highest in Europe. I think your rates would reflect this.

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.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I take it then that you'd have no problem with that same "hefty sin tax" for knives in the UK? Surely you wouldn't mind paying for the hooligans and gang members occasional indiscretions just as you don't seem to mind the law abiding citizens of the US paying for theirs, right?

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?

Obviously not, but the state, in requiring automobile insurance, doesn't specifically presuppose that you will drive and drink, either. It does in the statute in question.

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.

A more equitable solution would be to target the violent felons who actually commit the crimes, but that doesn't get much traction, does it? I've brought it up numerous times, but the subject always goes back to "let's target the criminals by making law abiding people pay for their excesses". Like with insurance schemes.
Curiously, on the news the other night, there was a report on Chicago, a city with a gun ban as strict, or stricter, than the one you have in the UK, yet a persons chances of being killed there are greater than in Kabul.
The Chicago Police Commissioner has begun a novel approach to the problem. No extra emphasis on assault weapons, hi-cap magazines or insurance that everyone who owns a gun has to pay (not that there are that many of them in legal hands in Chicago anyway). He's embarked on a campaign to target gangs in the inner city.
The crazy thing is, it's working. Last month Chicago reported its lowest murder rate in years and the trend seems to be holding.
Who'd a thunk it? Getting criminals off the street apparently lowers crime.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

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.

No, I'm asserting that a skilled martial artists hands and feet (and other body parts) are more deadly than an unskilled ordinary persons.are you making the claim that they're not?
Whether the deadly weapon can be lost,stolen, or traded is of no relative consequence regarding the fact that they are deadly. Insurance, and the alleged necessity for it are not predicated on transferability.

 

[thaiboxerken]

No, I'm asserting that a skilled martial artists hands and feet (and other body parts are more deadly than an unskilled ordinary persons.

More deadly? How so? Do you believe a 6 yr old black belt has deadlier hands and feet than an unskilled adult?

 

[uk_dave]

Maybe I missed a post. It's certainly possible as this is growing into a large thread. Could you point out some of those people who have claimed that knives are deadlier than guns?

Good grief. I even included the quote in my original post:

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

I didn't ignore it, I simply don't believe it. The UK has a very high crime rate. The per capita incident of violent assaults and robberies is one of the highest in Europe. I think your rates would reflect this.

So, if I apply to an insurance company for third party insurance on the basis that I never carry a knife in a public place and (with the exception of a sommelier corkscrew with a 1inch blade, I never transport a knife when I travel, you believe my share of that insurance liability which I will be forced to cover along with 30 million other adults in the UK who also never carry knives in public, will be high?
I beg to differ.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I take it then that you'd have no problem with that same "hefty sin tax" for knives in the UK? Surely you wouldn't mind paying for the hooligans and gang members occasional indiscretions just as you don't seem to mind the law abiding citizens of the US paying for theirs, right?

Yeah bring it on

Obviously not, but the state, in requiring automobile insurance, doesn't specifically presuppose that you will drive and drink, either. It does in the statute in question.

Are you suggesting that car insurers in the US cover the insured for criminal acts?

A more equitable solution would be to target the violent felons who actually commit the crimes, but that doesn't get much traction, does it? I've brought it up numerous times, but the subject always goes back to "let's target the criminals by making law abiding people pay for their excesses". Like with insurance schemes.

Nope, wrong again. I haven't seen anyone say criminals shouldn't feel the force of the law. Perhaps you could point to a post?

Curiously, on the news the other night, there was a report on Chicago, a city with a gun ban as strict, or stricter, than the one you have in the UK, yet a persons chances of being killed there are greater than in Kabul.
The Chicago Police Commissioner has begun a novel approach to the problem. No extra emphasis on assault weapons, hi-cap magazines or insurance that everyone who owns a gun has to pay (not that there are that many of them in legal hands in Chicago anyway). He's embarked on a campaign to target gangs in the inner city.
The crazy thing is, it's working. Last month Chicago reported its lowest murder rate in years and the trend seems to be holding.
Who'd a thunk it? Getting criminals off the street apparently lowers crime.

Yep. He must be a genius to have figured that out.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

More deadly? How so? Do you believe a 6 yr old black belt has deadlier hands and feet than an unskilled adult?

I thought we were talking about adults and, hopefully, to an adult.Children, AFAIK, are not required to have insurance, and maybe it's that I watch too much TV, but I did not know that possessing a black Belt granted you any particular mystical powers, just that it meant you were deemed competent by your instructor.
All the silliness you are trying to introduce aside, are you inferring that a skilled martial artist would not be able to use his hands and feet as weapons with any more skill than an untrained person? If so, then you have a point. If not, then his proficiency would make them more likely to cause death or injury.
As the courts have determined.

 

[Nessie]

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.

I meant the owner has to pay for insurance. The true purpose is to get gun owners to pay towards the damage caused by guns.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I thought we were talking about adults and, hopefully, to an adult.Children, AFAIK, are not required to have insurance, and maybe it's that I watch too much TV, but I did not know that possessing a black Belt granted you any particular mystical powers, just that it meant you were deemed competent by your instructor.
All the silliness you are trying to introduce aside, are you inferring that a skilled martial artist would not be able to use his hands and feet as weapons with any more skill than an untrained person? If so, then you have a point. If not, then his proficiency would make them more likely to cause death or injury.
As the courts have determined.

No, we were talking about guns. You're the one trying to equate the martial arts skill to the weapons of guns.

You don't think possessing a black belt grants mystical powers, but being a martial artist does?

Training in martial arts helps one to end a fight or defend one's self while at the same time teaching the martial artists how NOT to kill by accident.

Some courts have determined that a martial artist may have "deadly hands and feet" some have not. I don't agree with the courts that think martial artists hands and feet are deadly. Do you? If so, are you afraid of the lethality of 6 yr old black belts?

Again, you're trying to equivocate SKILL vs Weapon. I have no problem with people learning how to shoot. However, their weapons should be controlled. I have the same opinion of martial arts. I don't think people should be allowed to carry around Samurai Swords and Nunchuku in public.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Good grief. I even included the quote in my original post:

My bad. You found one person who said that.

So, if I apply to an insurance company for third party insurance on the basis that I never carry a knife in a public place and (with the exception of a sommelier corkscrew with a 1inch blade, I never transport a knife when I travel, you believe my share of that insurance liability which I will be forced to cover along with 30 million other adults in the UK who also never carry knives in public, will be high?
I beg to differ.

But that's not what the law we're discussing stipulates. I'm asking you to be held to the same standards as the NY law does.

Yeah bring it on

Do I detect a note of insincerity in you post? Considering that the UK has a very serious problem with crime involving assaults and robberies with a knife, that "very hefty sin tax" might cost you quite a bit of money.

Are you suggesting that car insurers in the US cover the insured for criminal acts?

No, I'm stating that the NY gun owners insurance legislation does just that. It requires a million dollar insurance policy (at minimum) simply to own a firearm. Based on a few quick quotes over the internet using my automobile, requesting quote on mandatory liability insurance only (at the maximum $500,000 offered, not the $1,000,000 mandated by the NY law), with minimal mileage rates (and using my premium rates as a very low risk driver)premiums would cost between $500 and $750 per year. And that's assuming the rates don't change if you own more than one gun. I tried it on a renters home insurance calculator, using the absolute minimum of $1000 total for all household items and only $100,000 for liability(the maximum liability offered) and that came to almost $500 per year.
I actually expect that the rates for this type of insurance would be higher.
Are you willing to pay $500-$750 a year (or more) for your knife insurance?

Nope, wrong again. I haven't seen anyone say criminals shouldn't feel the force of the law. Perhaps you could point to a post?

I can do better than that. If you'll look back a few posts I think you'll find where I posted a link to the Senate hearing where Milwaukee WI Police Commissioner Edward Flynn said he wasn't interested in prosecuting convicted felons who attempted to purchase a firearm (denied purchase based on NICS check).He sated that he didn't want to "chase paper", even though just making the attempt is a Federal felony crime for a convicted felon or fugitive from justice, and can result in a sentence of five years (plus any time left on the original sentence if the felon is still on parole). Some 80,000 + have been denied with no serious attempts to arrest them. This is according to the BATF.
I've suggested on this forum and others that targeting the gangs who cause much of this violence be given priority over cosmetic laws and blatant attempts (like this one) to interfere with the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, and the response has been, to say the least, lukewarm.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8984788#post8984788
I've long supported proactive measures to curb violent crime, and in regards to gun control, the issuance of a National Carry Permit based on the guidelines of the state permits, which include background checks and firearms safety training and can be used for real time background checks for purchases.

Yep. He must be a genius to have figured that out.

Considering that he works for a liberal administration, you've got a point. But his idea is working, unlike the gun bans, AWB bans, and this insurance scheme.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

No, we were talking about guns. You're the one trying to equate the martial arts skill to the weapons of guns.

You don't think possessing a black belt grants mystical powers, but being a martial artist does?

Training in martial arts helps one to end a fight or defend one's self while at the same time teaching the martial artists how NOT to kill by accident.

Some courts have determined that a martial artist may have "deadly hands and feet" some have not. I don't agree with the courts that think martial artists hands and feet are deadly. Do you? If so, are you afraid of the lethality of 6 yr old black belts?

Again, you're trying to equivocate SKILL vs Weapon. I have no problem with people learning how to shoot. However, their weapons should be controlled. I have the same opinion of martial arts. I don't think people should be allowed to carry around Samurai Swords and Nunchuku in public.

You're missing the point (intentionally, I believe).
Can the hands and feet of a skilled adult martial artist be used as deadly weapons? Obviously so.
Then, using the same theory as the NY legislation in question, one must presuppose that it is likely enough that it will occur to justify the requirement of insurance. The actual ethical guidelines of the individual martial artist does not even enter into the picture ( just as in NY gun owners).
You can, with some justification state, that most skilled adult martial artists would not use their weapons(hands, feet, etc.) unlawfully, and even that the vast majority of skilled adult martial artists never use their weapons (hands, feet, etc) unlawfully.
But the same is true of gun owners. The great majority of gun violence in the US (I'm excluding suicides) is perpetrated by only a small minority of its citizenry, just as the vast majority of skilled unarmed assaults resulting in injury ro death are perpetrated by a very small minority of martial artists.

 

[jimbob]

You're missing the point (intentionally, I believe).
Can the hands and feet of a skilled adult martial artist be used as deadly weapons? Obviously so.
Then, using the same theory as the NY legislation in question, one must presuppose that it is likely enough that it will occur to justify the requirement of insurance. The actual ethical guidelines of the individual martial artist does not even enter into the picture ( just as in NY gun owners).
You can, with some justification state, that most skilled adult martial artists would not use their weapons(hands, feet, etc.) unlawfully, and even that the vast majority of skilled adult martial artists never use their weapons (hands, feet, etc) unlawfully.
But the same is true of gun owners. The great majority of gun violence in the US (I'm excluding suicides) is perpetrated by only a small minority of its citizenry, just as the vast majority of skilled unarmed assaults resulting in injury ro death are perpetrated by a very small minority of martial artists.

Ease of causing injury also should be added to the equation, and the data I can find suggests that the risk of theft is not insignificant - I make it about 9% per decade per gun owning household.

Why shouldn't gun owners be insured against that? Especially as the premiums would reflect actions taken to reduce the risk.

 

[WildCat]

So, if I apply to an insurance company for third party insurance on the basis that I never carry a knife in a public place

Nope, it has to cover that too if you're going to compare it to the NY proposal. It even has to cover you if you go nuts one day and go on a slashing spree at your local daycare center.

 

[WildCat]

Ease of causing injury also should be added to the equation, and the data I can find suggests that the risk of theft is not insignificant - I make it about 9% per decade per gun owning household.

Why shouldn't gun owners be insured against that? Especially as the premiums would reflect actions taken to reduce the risk.

The NY proposal isn't to compensate you if your gun is stolen. It's to cover any damages you might do with the gun, even intentional and criminal acts. It doesn't transfer to to a person who steals your gun, or to anyone they might subsequently sell it to.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You're missing the point (intentionally, I believe).
Can the hands and feet of a skilled adult martial artist be used as deadly weapons? Obviously so.
Then, using the same theory as the NY legislation in question, one must presuppose that it is likely enough that it will occur to justify the requirement of insurance. The actual ethical guidelines of the individual martial artist does not even enter into the picture ( just as in NY gun owners).
You can, with some justification state, that most skilled adult martial artists would not use their weapons(hands, feet, etc.) unlawfully, and even that the vast majority of skilled adult martial artists never use their weapons (hands, feet, etc) unlawfully.
But the same is true of gun owners. The great majority of gun violence in the US (I'm excluding suicides) is perpetrated by only a small minority of its citizenry, just as the vast majority of skilled unarmed assaults resulting in injury ro death are perpetrated by a very small minority of martial artists.

Here's the problem. Being trained in martial arts doesn't necessarily make a persons hands or feet any more effective than the average tough guy. Also, you like to qualify your legal theory to only adults. Why is that?

A gun is lethal, in the hands of an adult or a child. So is a sword or nunchuku.

I don't see any reason to regulate skill sets, especially when there really isn't an objective standard to gauge whether such skills make a person more lethal or not.

You're trying to compare weapons to skills, and I won't fall for that nonsense.

 

[triforcharity]

More deadly? How so? Do you believe a 6 yr old black belt has deadlier hands and feet than an unskilled adult?

Um, yes. I absolutely do.

 

[triforcharity]

Here's the problem. Being trained in martial arts doesn't necessarily make a persons hands or feet any more effective than the average tough guy.

So, let me describe myself, and compare it to you.

I'm 5'11" tall, weigh about 200lbs. No martial arts or fighting training whatsoever.

You're an admitted martial artist, correct?

I'm unarmed, as are you.

Who wins the fight? Me or you?


Most likely you. Your hands and feet are more effective, because you know how to use them and manipulate them to do the most effective "damage" for lack of a better word. Your premise is flawed, as usual.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So, let me describe myself, and compare it to you.

I'm 5'11" tall, weigh about 200lbs. No martial arts or fighting training whatsoever.

You're an admitted martial artist, correct?

I'm unarmed, as are you.

Who wins the fight? Me or you?


Most likely you. Your hands and feet are more effective, because you know how to use them and manipulate them to do the most effective "damage" for lack of a better word. Your premise is flawed, as usual.

Most likely, I knock you down so I can run away.

A child with a gun is more likely to kill you in a fight.

Regulate the weapons, not the skills.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Um, yes. I absolutely do.

Wow. You really watch too many movies. Hint, the last air Bender is fiction.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Here's the problem. Being trained in martial arts doesn't necessarily make a persons hands or feet any more effective than the average tough guy. Also, you like to qualify your legal theory to only adults. Why is that?

A gun is lethal, in the hands of an adult or a child. So is a sword or nunchuku.

I don't see any reason to regulate skill sets, especially when there really isn't an objective standard to gauge whether such skills make a person more lethal or not.

You're trying to compare weapons to skills, and I won't fall for that nonsense.

Children aren't legally capable of entering into a binding contract, therefore they cannot be required to purchase insurance. I'm surprised you didn't know that. We are talking about a mandatory requirement for insurance here. You might want to re-read the OP.

You are attempting to make an irrelevant distinction. Once the skill set is acquired, the weapons (hands, feet, etc) reach a new level of potential for misuse. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of martial artists are frauds and the "skills" they demonstrate are nothing more than moderately clever stage acts. If only a tiny fraction are actually capable of consistently overpowering an untrained opponent and exerting more force with a blow than an untrained person, the case is still valid. The NY law doesn't discriminate as to the firearms potential for harm, only the fact that it is a firearm.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't agree that a highly trained 6 yr old has deadly hands and feet. In fact, i don't think most martial artists have deadly hands and feet.
The topic is about insuring weapons, not skillsets. If hands and feet were stolen for criminal use, you might have a case.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

I don't agree that a highly trained 6 yr old has deadly hands and feet. In fact, i don't think most martial artists have deadly hands and feet.
The topic is about insuring weapons, not skillsets. If hands and feet were stolen for criminal use, you might have a case.

SIx years olds cannot purchase insurance, nor be required to purchase it. Before you mention six year olds again, you might want to do a simple Google search on age of legal responsibility.
The highlighted word in your post is critical. It doesn't matter that "most" martial artists are incompetent frauds, it only matters that there be some, even a tiny fraction, who are capable of using their hands, feet, etc. with more lethality than the average person. The NY law is an absolute. A muzzle loading derringer is no different than a semi-automatic rifle.