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

[thaiboxerken]

Do you think legality changes the lethality of fists and feet?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Do you think legality changes the lethality of fists and feet?

From the standpoint of insurance and the state being able to mandate insurance, it's not a matter of what I think, it's a fact. The courts have already established that hands and feet may be considered dangerous weapons, and that a person who is highly skilled has a greater propensity for doing damage.
You're running around in circles, Ken. Under the same theory that NY is using to require gun owners to purchase insurance, martial artists, knife owners, etc. may also be compelled to do likewise. I'm not saying that the state will do this, or even should do this. I'm saying that the theory is the same.

 

[jimbob]

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.

Upthread, I said that the NY proposals don't look very good; Nessie and I are arguing the point for insurance in general.

 

[thaiboxerken]

From the standpoint of insurance and the state being able to mandate insurance, it's not a matter of what I think, it's a fact. The courts have already established that hands and feet may be considered dangerous weapons, and that a person who is highly skilled has a greater propensity for doing damage.
You're running around in circles, Ken. Under the same theory that NY is using to require gun owners to purchase insurance, martial artists, knife owners, etc. may also be compelled to do likewise. I'm not saying that the state will do this, or even should do this. I'm saying that the theory is the same.

Some courts, not "the courts." It depends on which state you live in. What's the law in NY? Why do you think that martial arts actually turn people into deadly weapons? Do you let courts decide your reality, no matter how stupid the assertion?

Martial arts is a skill. There is no reason to insure a martial artist as a deadly weapon. A 6yr old martial artist is not a deadly weapon.

The theory is not the same. A gun is a weapon. Hands and feet are only deadly weapons if they are used, intently, as deadly weapons. Firearms are deadly weapons no matter the intent of the person wielding that weapon.

Fists don't accidentally fire off and kill people in the next building. Guns do.
Fists and feet can't be stolen and used in crime. Guns can.
Fists and feet can't be trafficked on the black market for criminal use. Guns can.
Fists and feet aren't used for spree/mass murders. Guns are.

You gun nuts are so off the path of reality, that you'll compare guns to knives, martial arts, swimming pools, cars and pillows. It's rather pathetic, actually.

That you think a 6yr old with martial arts skills has deadly feet and fists says quite a bit.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Some courts, not "the courts." It depends on which state you live in. What's the law in NY? Why do you think that martial arts actually turn people into deadly weapons? Do you let courts decide your reality, no matter how stupid the assertion?

A decision in one court is not binding on all courts, but decisions are often used to establish precedent in another court. If you weren't so fixated on trying to move the subject here to your interest in six year olds (which you constantly refer to even though it has been repeatedly established that six year olds cannot enter into a binding contract and therefore have absolutely nothing to do with madatory insurance) then you might realize it.

Martial arts is a skill. There is no reason to insure a martial artist as a deadly weapon. A 6yr old martial artist is not a deadly weapon.

You don't seem to have a particularly good grasp of what we're discussing here. A deadly weapon can be any object, inanimate or animate that is used as a deadly weapon. Most courts hold this view, not just a few. Unless you can establish that there are no martial artists who, by reason of their skill, are capable of inflciting more damage in a fray than an ordinary person, you're oout of gas.
And again with the six year olds.

The theory is not the same. A gun is a weapon. Hands and feet are only deadly weapons if they are used, intently, as deadly weapons. Firearms are deadly weapons no matter the intent of the person wielding that weapon.

And can you establish that no skilled martial artist is capable of intentionally using his hands /fist/etc. to inflict bodily harm on another person except in self defense?
Requiring insurance to cover criminal acts based on a presumption that mere possession of a weapon somehow increases a persons likelihood of committing a crime is the theory, but apparently no amount of logic will convince you.

Fists don't accidentally fire off and kill people in the next building. Guns do.
Fists and feet can't be stolen and used in crime. Guns can.
Fists and feet can't be trafficked on the black market for criminal use. Guns can.
Fists and feet aren't used for spree/mass murders. Guns are.

All completely irrelevant to the subject of requiring insurance based on a presumption that the individual will commit a crime simply because he/she possesses a firearm. The incidence of unlawful use compared to the number of firearms in possession is so small as to render the presumption invalid.
Accidents have nothing to do with it. You can't "accidentally" rob a bank or rape a woman accidentally.
The theft of a firearm from an individual has no relationship whatsoever with his/her proclivity for using it to commit an unlawful act.
The existence of an illegal gun market does not increase the chances that an otherwise law abiding citizen will suddenly decide to commit a violent crime.
Spree/mass murders are so rare that they are statistically insignificant. Comparatively speaking the number of skilled martial artists who commit an assault is probably higher by several orders of magnitude. You are employing anecdotal evidence to make a general case.

Look at it this way:
What is the percentage of people who use a firearm to commit a violent crime compared to the number of law abiding firearm owners in the US? A fair estimate would be millions of people who are law abiding gun owners versus thousands of people who use them to commit crimes. that doesn't even work out to a fraction of 1 %.
Now compare that to the number of skilled martial artists vs the number of martial artists who have used their skills in assaults.
I don't know how many skilled martial artists the are in the US but I would think it is small. According to you it would have to be very small.
And yet on a very quick Google search I turned up quite a number of instances of assault:
http://www.chieftain.com/news/metro...cle_951737c0-61c1-11e1-b189-0019bb2963f4.html
http://thesouthern.com/news/local/i...cle_1f297d46-788d-11e2-97e0-0019bb2963f4.html
http://www.citizen-times.com/articl...fighter-sought-officer-assault?nclick_check=1
http://www.coloradspringscriminalla...rtial-arts-fighter-arrested-for-assault.shtml
http://lowermacungie.patch.com/articles/martial-arts-instructor-allegedly-sexually-assaulted-student
http://www.ikigaiway.com/2009/martial-arts-involved-in-chris-brown-rihanna-assault-case/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/0...tructor-charged-with-assaulting-his-students/
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...tial-arts-fighter-convicted-of-assault/nSwSt/
http://www.examiner.com/article/gir...martial-arts-instructor-accused-of-raping-her
And finding all these took just one Google search and less than five minutes.
How many skilled martial artists are there in the US? I would think that there couldn't be more than what 20-30 thousand, if that many?
Before you object, bear in mind that this is the same type of reasoning (the use of anecdotal evidence to support a general claim) the anti-gun faction uses to make their case on gun control.

You gun nuts are so off the path of reality, that you'll compare guns to knives, martial arts, swimming pools, cars and pillows. It's rather pathetic, actually.

There you go with the personal attacks ("You gun nuts"), pretty much proving that when all else fails, try the ad hominem diversion and hope the person you're debating gets so upset he forgets that you're ducking and dodging. Then you throw in ridiculous hyperbole ( "swimming pools", "pillows") on top of it.
The bottom line, no matter how hard you try to ignore it, is simple.
The NY legislation considers mere possession of the weapon as a reason to make criminal insurance mandatory despite the fact there is no causal realationship between lawful possession and a predisposition to commit an unlawful act.
You don't seem to be aware of it, but you're objecting to mandatory criminal insurance for martial artists based on exactly the same reason others, including myself, are objecting to the NY legislation.

That you think a 6yr old with martial arts skills has deadly feet and fists says quite a bit.

The only person bringing six year olds into this debate is you. Over and over.

 

[uk_dave]

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.

The law stipulates that gun owners should carry $1million public liability insurance, right?
Now, if you ask me to indemnify you to the tune of $1million, I'm gonna wanna know how much risk there is of me having to pay out a sum up to that amount.
If you own a gun which you store in a locked safe while in your home, transport in a locked box in your secure car and only use it once a month to target shoot on a properly supervised firing range, I'm gonna consider you to be very low risk of an liability with regard to third parties.

Now, **** happens, we know this. But if you have complied with all of my requirements for safe storage, transportation and usage of the weapon then I (the insurance company) am not going to have any problems with you if something bad does happen...... you'll just lose your no claims discount!

Similarly, if there was a requirement for every adult (or household) in the UK to carry public liability insurance for knives which have nowhere near the same potential for harm as does a firearm, and which under current laws are not allowed to be carried in public without good reason, and the majority of knife owners complied with this law, then premiums are going to be very low simply because the income from the millions of knife owners in the UK is going to be more than adequate to cover the cost of knife crime.

Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your attempts at finding an equivalence between knives and guns, but there you have it. Prove me wrong if you're so certain.

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.

Nope, no insincerity but I do detect some wishful thinking on your part.
For the same reasons explained above, the number of knife sales (kitchen knives, cutlery, box cutters etc etc) in the UK is likely to be so great that in order to produce a victims compensation fund proportionate to the amount of knife crime, I would expect nothing more than maybe a 1% increase in VAT on knife sales.
If you disagree, please explain why.

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.

But it's interesting that the pro-gun posters on this site have been at pains to point out that more people are killed in automobile accidents than by guns. Now you want me to believe that gun ownership is more risky?

What you illustrate is precisely the point that has been made on this thread: If insurance consider gun owners to be such at such a high risk to third parties that they won't even cover them, or if they do it will be to the tune of $thousands per year, what does that say about the damage gun ownership currently costs to your society?

Seriously, if it's all right and proper for you guys to have the access to weapons that the 2A apparently affords you, doesn't it make you stop and pause for just a moment at just how harmful this level of gun ownership is when even the insurance industry don't want anything to do with you? Or if they do, it is at a level which is greater than they would charge you on a car policy?

If this insurance proposal does stand then I would hope to see the market adjust accordingly and with insurance companies taking the lead in devising a set of rules for safe gun ownership which can make the premiums affordable to all but the irresponsible gun owners.

I kinda doubt it will stand though, but it has been an interesting exercise in shining a light on just how dangerous gun ownership is.

 

[triforcharity]

Martial arts is a skill. There is no reason to insure a martial artist as a deadly weapon. A 6yr old martial artist is not a deadly weapon.

The theory is not the same. A gun is a weapon. Hands and feet are only deadly weapons if they are used, intently, as deadly weapons. Firearms are deadly weapons no matter the intent of the person wielding that weapon.

I know this is going to come as a HUGE surprise to you, but weapons are only deadly weapon, if they're USED for killing something. I've got a few different guns, that are NOT deadly weapons, unless paper is alive.

A child with martial arts skills CAN kill using those skills. Just as the kid a few years back that used the wrestling skills to kill his sister(or friend, someone). His intent was not to hurt the other child, but it certainly turned out that way.

The highlited portion is absolutely incorrect. Your ignorance and blind bias notwithstanding.

 

[uk_dave]

The highlited portion is absolutely incorrect. Your ignorance and blind bias notwithstanding.

How is it incorrect?

Surely he is saying that a gun can kill even if the wielder of the gun didn't intend it?

You know, I do admire the trust you have in your fellow gun owners, but I don't share it.

As has been said elsewhere on this forum, all legal gun owners are responsible gun owners until they aren't.

The guy who shoots his foot when out hunting with a group probably didn't intend it to happen. It is unlikely that he could have injured himself with martial arts training as well.

The gun makes accidental injury a possibility.

You and others on these threads are no doubt fully competent, careful, responsible, considerate gun owners. I do believe that to be true.

I understand that you don't want to pay the penalty for the idiots who aren't as careful and responsible as you.

But you must also acknowledge that those idiots exist.

Why don't gun owners via the NRA or some other representative body actually come forward with positive proposals to stop idiots from hurting themselves and others?

Stop with the silly comparisons to knives and martial arts and god knows what else, and just say 'yes there are people out there who have a right to bear arms but shouldn't be allowed to until ......... and then if they have avoidable accidents, or are careless or act irresponsibly then they should face these sanctions:..............'

You fill in the blanks.

 

[Sabretooth]

You know, I do admire the trust you have in your fellow gun owners, but I don't share it.

I have far and away more trust in my fellow legal gun owners than I ever will for the drivers I share the road with.

 

[WildCat]

Why don't gun owners via the NRA or some other representative body actually come forward with positive proposals to stop idiots from hurting themselves and others?

The NRA has promoted gun safety and sponsored gun safety classes since its inception.

Ironically, it's been the anti-gun people who have provided the opposition to such gun safety programs like this one.

 

[uk_dave]

The NRA has promoted gun safety and sponsored gun safety classes since its inception.

Ironically, it's been the anti-gun people who have provided the opposition to such gun safety programs like this one.

Oh ffs. A program designed to alert kindergarten kids to the dangers of finding a gun.

I suspect that any opposition to such a program is predicated on the notion that perhaps in 21st century america, pre-school kids shouldn't ever be in a position to find a weapon because maybe the parents would already be responsible enough to keep weapons safely away from them.

Jeez. Where is the NRA program teaching gun owners to keep their weapons away from children?

 

[GeeMack]

The bottom line, no matter how hard you try to ignore it, is simple.
The NY legislation considers mere possession of the weapon as a reason to make criminal insurance mandatory despite the fact there is no causal realationship between lawful possession and a predisposition to commit an unlawful act.
You don't seem to be aware of it, but you're objecting to mandatory criminal insurance for martial artists based on exactly the same reason others, including myself, are objecting to the NY legislation.

Hands and feet are used as weapons to commit a little over 4 percent of homicides. That is approximately the same as the number of homicides where a shotgun is used, and about 20 percent more than the number of homicides where a rifle is used as the weapon. The premium paid for mandatory insurance for possession of a rifle or shotgun, considering the likelihood of use to commit a homicide, should be nearly the same as the mandatory insurance for possession of hands and feet.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The hands and feet thing is absolutely stupid. However, if you want to consider them deadly weapons, then all people with hands and feet should pay the insurance. Martial artists hands and feet are no deadlier than non-martial artists.
Yes, some courts have established that they are, but not "the" courts.

It's rather sad that gun nuts think that 6 yr old black-belts have deadly hands and feet. Perhaps that's the real reason they want their guns, it's because of the children....with black-belts.

That said, the NY insurance bill doesn't assume that gun owners have a predisposition to use firearms in crimes. It's there to help alleviate damages when crimes are committed with guns.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I know this is going to come as a HUGE surprise to you, but weapons are only deadly weapon, if they're USED for killing something. I've got a few different guns, that are NOT deadly weapons, unless paper is alive.

Attacking a piece of paper with a deadly weapon doesn't negate the lethality of the weapon.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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.

Then you need to go to a martial arts studio.

At your stated height and weight I think you would have no trouble pining most black belts under the age of 15, and a fair number of those under 18. I don't recommend choking them to death to prove the point.

The belts are given for skills, not actual fighting.

 

[WildCat]

Oh ffs. A program designed to alert kindergarten kids to the dangers of finding a gun.

I suspect that any opposition to such a program is predicated on the notion that perhaps in 21st century america, pre-school kids shouldn't ever be in a position to find a weapon because maybe the parents would already be responsible enough to keep weapons safely away from them.

Presumably in 21st century America children shouldn't ever be in a position where they are sexually assaulted, so let's stop teaching them not to get in stranges' cars and such. And let's eliminate programs teaching them about alcohol, gangs, and drugs too, since no child should have to worry about that. Or how to survive a house fire, no child should have to worry about their house catching fire in this day and age. Etc etc.

Jeez. Where is the NRA program teaching gun owners to keep their weapons away from children?

Right here. As I've said, they've been teaching gun safety since their inception.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Then you need to go to a martial arts studio.

At your stated height and weight I think you would have no trouble pining most black belts under the age of 15, and a fair number of those under 18. I don't recommend choking them to death to prove the point.

The belts are given for skills, not actual fighting.

Too often, they aren't even given for skill, but for $loyalty.

But I think we've stumbled upon the real reason for guns. It's because of all the deadly black-belt toddlers out there!

 

[Dr. Keith]

Attacking a piece of paper with a deadly weapon doesn't negate the lethality of the weapon.

Yeah, what about "accidental shooting" is so hard to understand?

Dick Cheney only intended to shoot birds, not lawyers. Or so he says.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Too often, they aren't even given for skill, but for $loyalty.

That's why we quit going. My daughter wasn't getting any better, but she kept advancing. Even she got bored with it.

But I think we've stumbled upon the real reason for guns. It's because of all the deadly black-belt toddlers out there!

Nice edit.

 

[uk_dave]

Presumably in 21st century America children shouldn't ever be in a position where they are sexually assaulted, so let's stop teaching them not to get in stranges' cars and such. And let's eliminate programs teaching them about alcohol, gangs, and drugs too, since no child should have to worry about that. Or how to survive a house fire, no child should have to worry about their house catching fire in this day and age. Etc etc.

All of those things, including the 'don't touch guns, go tell an adult' can easily be handled by teachers.

It's interesting that the one example you gave happened to be one you felt a worthy example because 'anti-gun people opposed it'.

Could it be that parents didn't want a pro-gun pressure group inside kindergartens?
Could it be that teaching gun safety to a captive audience of pre-schoolers was considered 1. letting the parents off the hook for leaving guns around in the first place, and 2. merely a publicity stunt by the NRA.

I wonder how many incidents of children being injured by finding loaded guns there had to be before this proposal was put forward by the NRA.

The NRA whose inception was in 1871.

Right here. As I've said, they've been teaching gun safety since their inception.

Yes, they do offer training. But no one makes the gun owners take advantage of it.

Maybe a certificate of competence issued by the NRA could help to keep the insurance premiums down.


ETA:

In 1999 the ABC News program 20/20 did a feature on Eddie Eagle which was highly critical of the program.[1] This feature stated that it did not work to simply "Tell [very young] kids what to do" and expect them to follow those instructions implicitly.
The producers had a group of schoolchildren (aged 3 to 10 years old) watch the Eddie Eagle video along with a presentation by a police officer on gun safety. While the children all appeared to understand the message that guns are not toys, when the children were left alone with prop guns (and a hidden camera capturing their reactions), they all proceeded to use them as if they were toys.
NRA spokespersons have numerous[quantify] anecdotal accounts of "saves" made by the program in which children who were in live situations where a gun was found lying around did exactly as the program instructed them to.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Eagle

Just an FYI