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

[Cylinder]

Instead of punishing law abiding folks for getting burgled, why not take the money out of the estate of anyone convicted of a gun crime? You'll still get the compensation money but you'll be taking it from criminals instead of innocents...

...and not punish people for keeping firearms? That's crazy talk!

 

[Nessie]

Instead of punishing law abiding folks for getting burgled, why not take the money out of the estate of anyone convicted of a gun crime? You'll still get the compensation money but you'll be taking it from criminals instead of innocents...

If your car gets stolen and used in a crime, you are not being punished if you have to make an insurance claim to repair any damage or if the car is never recovered get a new one. You are certainly not being asked to compensate the victim of the crime. But your premium does rise and I see that as an incentive to make sure your car is properly secured or you make additional security arrangements.

I would like to see insurance for guns that does the same thing. Gun owners and dealers are no where near security concious enough and that is a reason why far too many guns have ended up in criminal hands.

 

[Giz]

If your car gets stolen and used in a crime, you are not being punished if you have to make an insurance claim to repair any damage or if the car is never recovered get a new one. You are certainly not being asked to compensate the victim of the crime. But your premium does rise and I see that as an incentive to make sure your car is properly secured or you make additional security arrangements.

I would like to see insurance for guns that does the same thing. Gun owners and dealers are no where near security concious enough and that is a reason why far too many guns have ended up in criminal hands.

Gun owners already have insurance to replace stolen guns. (aka household insurance). What you are talking about is a "Sin tax" on the law abiding to pay for the actions of criminals.

Personally, I'd encourage gun owners to store their guns in bolted down safes but if they don't and a gun gets burgled from their house then I think that 100% of the moral culpability and the legal punishment should be on the burglar. (at most one could say that the gun owner had taken a risk... Nothing more).

Talking about risk versus culpability; Tell me, if someone decided to walk home late at night, through a bad neighborhood with poor street lighting and they were robbed or raped... Wouldn't you say that, while they had perhaps taken a risk, the entire moral and legal culpability should be laid on the robber/rapist? And that we shouldn't punish the pedestrian for doing something wholly legal (even though, due to the presence of bad guys in the world, it was risky). You wouldn't, say, Levy a fine on them... Would you?

 

[BStrong]

False equivalence. Different things need to be treated differently depending on the different problems they cause.

If gun owners go rogue or fail to secure their gun so another can use it, I say the gun owner should pay up and considering the cost of damage a gun can do, they will need insurance to pay for it.

There is no insurance company in the world that will insure you for intentional criminal acts.

One of the prerequisites for issuance of a carry permit in the county I reside in is a 1 million dollar liability policy, which is actually a good idea imo for carrying concealed.

It also keeps out individuals of lesser economic status, as I've been told that a non-homeowner would be looking at a premium of 3K - 4K a year for coverage - which is why these proposals for similar insurance for simple firearms possession are not going to stand court review.

 

[Nessie]

Gun owners already have insurance to replace stolen guns. (aka household insurance). What you are talking about is a "Sin tax" on the law abiding to pay for the actions of criminals.

Personally, I'd encourage gun owners to store their guns in bolted down safes but if they don't and a gun gets burgled from their house then I think that 100% of the moral culpability and the legal punishment should be on the burglar. (at most one could say that the gun owner had taken a risk... Nothing more).

Talking about risk versus culpability; Tell me, if someone decided to walk home late at night, through a bad neighborhood with poor street lighting and they were robbed or raped... Wouldn't you say that, while they had perhaps taken a risk, the entire moral and legal culpability should be laid on the robber/rapist? And that we shouldn't punish the pedestrian for doing something wholly legal (even though, due to the presence of bad guys in the world, it was risky). You wouldn't, say, Levy a fine on them... Would you?

If household insurance is already covering the theft of guns then fine.

I don't think you have been reading my posts properly. I have not been saying gun owners need to pay for the acts of criminals, only their own acts.

 

[Nessie]

There is no insurance company in the world that will insure you for intentional criminal acts.

One of the prerequisites for issuance of a carry permit in the county I reside in is a 1 million dollar liability policy, which is actually a good idea imo for carrying concealed.

It also keeps out individuals of lesser economic status, as I've been told that a non-homeowner would be looking at a premium of 3K - 4K a year for coverage - which is why these proposals for similar insurance for simple firearms possession are not going to stand court review.

Again, fine if such liability is made compulsory for all gun owners.

 

[Giz]

Man, this thread actually makes me want to join the NRA. I'm starting to feel that they may be a necessary counter balance to the anti gun side in order to keep the middle ground in a sane place.

 

[jimbob]

Man, this thread actually makes me want to join the NRA. I'm starting to feel that they may be a necessary counter balance to the anti gun side in order to keep the middle ground in a sane place.

Is this so unreasonable?

To reiterate, I am advocating insurance for third-party illegal use of guns based on the fact that a lot of criminals obtain guns through straw purchases, and that a lot of guns are stored with inadequate security.

If a mining company stored dynamite where bank robbers could easily steal it, and it was subsequently stolen and used in bank robberies shouldn't they be liable? In many jurisdictions (I don't know about the US) they would be liable for something, probably related to criminal negligence.

 

[WildCat]

Automobiles: if the number of criminal injuries caused by automobiles is significant them yes they should be.

Automobiles are used in a very high percentage of crimes, so shouldn't vehicle owners have to have $1 million insurance covering any crimes they might commit with that vehicle?

About 3:45 p.m., Raymond Tucker was walking on the 1900 block of East 79th Street when a group of males jumped out of a vehicle and shot him, authorities said.

The man was taken in critical condition to Northwestern Memorial Hospital, said Chicago Fire Department spokesman Larry Langford.

The shooter jumped back into the car and fled east on 79th Street, police said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-south-side-shooting-20130308,0,6009859.story

A 31-year-old man was killed when an SUV pulled alongside the car in which he was riding and rammed it off the road and down an embankment onto Interstate 57 in the Washington Heights neighborhood, authorities said.

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/544/article/p2p-74737256/

That's just from today's paper.

 

[jimbob]

Automobiles are used in a very high percentage of crimes, so shouldn't vehicle owners have to have $1 million insurance covering any crimes they might commit with that vehicle?

Actually, earlier posts about the impossibility of criminal intent insurance have persuaded me that this is probably unworkable.

I do think that liability insurance for 3rd party criminal use of firearms due is a good idea though.

I am tending towards the idea that if the owner can show they took reasonable precautions and the gun was still stolen then the liability should be waived.

 

[uk_dave]

It might just be worth pointing out that just because a figure of $1million is mandated for thrid party liability insurance, it doesn't mean that all claims would pay out that amount.

In fact, given that in some US states the mandatory third party liability in motor insurance is a minimum $15,000.00 and is woefully insufficient to cover even basic medical costs, upping the liability for motor insurance to $1million wouldn't be a bad idea.

 

[Nessie]

Automobiles are used in a very high percentage of crimes, so shouldn't vehicle owners have to have $1 million insurance covering any crimes they might commit with that vehicle?


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-south-side-shooting-20130308,0,6009859.story


http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/544/article/p2p-74737256/

That's just from today's paper.

If you really want guns and vehicles to be treated the same I would be very happy with that.

So all guns must be registered along with their owner. The sale of the vehicle must also be recorded to update the register. Insurance or some form of liability to cover accidents and damage is compulsory. Gun owners must under go a training course which they must pass to be allowed a a licence to get a gun. Different types of gun mean different types of training. If a gun owner commits any offence they may lose their licence. Certain illnesses and they must surrender their licence. Their eyesight needs to be of a certain standard to get a licence. There are age restrictions on licences. Other restrictions can be placed on licences especially for new holders.

I think guns should be treated exactly the same as vehicles, which is what gun owners want.

 

[WildCat]

Actually, earlier posts about the impossibility of criminal intent insurance have persuaded me that this is probably unworkable.

I do think that liability insurance for 3rd party criminal use of firearms due is a good idea though.
I am tending towards the idea that if the owner can show they took reasonable precautions and the gun was still stolen then the liability should be waived.

How is that even possible? Guns can remain operable for 100 years or more. You'd basically have to make a one-time payment to cover any criminal damages caused by someone using your stolen gun for basically forever, because certainly the former gun owner can't be forced to continue insurance payments when he no longer possesses the gun, or his estate after his death in perpetuity.

 

[BStrong]

Again, fine if such liability is made compulsory for all gun owners.

Not fine if the requirement is insurance against the consequences of intentional acts.

Locally the requirement is liability insurance for carrying a concealed firearm in public areas - and even then the insurance would not cover an individual willfully committing criminal acts.

The current blue-sky wetdreaming involves the insurance coverage paying out on the basis of criminal acts committed by the owner - which isn't possible.

 

[WildCat]

It might just be worth pointing out that just because a figure of $1million is mandated for thrid party liability insurance, it doesn't mean that all claims would pay out that amount.

In fact, given that in some US states the mandatory third party liability in motor insurance is a minimum $15,000.00 and is woefully insufficient to cover even basic medical costs, upping the liability for motor insurance to $1million wouldn't be a bad idea.

If you really want guns and vehicles to be treated the same I would be very happy with that.

So all guns must be registered along with their owner. The sale of the vehicle must also be recorded to update the register. Insurance or some form of liability to cover accidents and damage is compulsory. Gun owners must under go a training course which they must pass to be allowed a a licence to get a gun. Different types of gun mean different types of training. If a gun owner commits any offence they may lose their licence. Certain illnesses and they must surrender their licence. Their eyesight needs to be of a certain standard to get a licence. There are age restrictions on licences. Other restrictions can be placed on licences especially for new holders.

I think guns should be treated exactly the same as vehicles, which is what gun owners want.

So why aren't you guys arguing for similar insurance requirements in the UK?

 

[BStrong]

If you really want guns and vehicles to be treated the same I would be very happy with that.

So all guns must be registered along with their owner. The sale of the vehicle must also be recorded to update the register. Insurance or some form of liability to cover accidents and damage is compulsory. Gun owners must under go a training course which they must pass to be allowed a a licence to get a gun. Different types of gun mean different types of training. If a gun owner commits any offence they may lose their licence. Certain illnesses and they must surrender their licence. Their eyesight needs to be of a certain standard to get a licence. There are age restrictions on licences. Other restrictions can be placed on licences especially for new holders.

I think guns should be treated exactly the same as vehicles, which is what gun owners want.

You confuse licensing for street use with simple possession - even in Califiornia, you can purchase any vehicle you can afford, have it flat towed to your private property, and never register, insure or need to interact with governmental entities. As long as the vehicle in question is never used on the public roadway, the state has no interest in what the owner does with the vehicle.

I have friends that own "track day" motorcycles and passenger vehicles that are not registered or licensed for street use, including late model bikes and cars purchased new, and once that vehicle was purchased and the sales tax paid, that was the last involvement w/ government those vehicles have seen.

A smart owner might file a certificate of non-operation if they ever plan to sell the vehicle on, but even that is voluntary.

 

[jimbob]

So why aren't you guys arguing for similar insurance requirements in the UK?

Because there isn't a gun problem in the UK

 

[WildCat]

Because there isn't a gun problem in the UK

What does that have to do with cars? If it should be required for cars in the USA (as you and Nessie said) why not in the UK as well? Don't criminals in the UK use cars?

And can you respond to post 1073?

 

[jimbob]

How is that even possible? Guns can remain operable for 100 years or more. You'd basically have to make a one-time payment to cover any criminal damages caused by someone using your stolen gun for basically forever, because certainly the former gun owner can't be forced to continue insurance payments when he no longer possesses the gun, or his estate after his death in perpetuity.

True, so add a 10-year limitation on them. I'll bet that most criminals who steal guns wouldn't wait a decade to use them.

It mightn't be completely fair but would still discourage straw purchases, and negligent storage.

 

[Nessie]

Not fine if the requirement is insurance against the consequences of intentional acts.

Locally the requirement is liability insurance for carrying a concealed firearm in public areas - and even then the insurance would not cover an individual willfully committing criminal acts.

The current blue-sky wetdreaming involves the insurance coverage paying out on the basis of criminal acts committed by the owner - which isn't possible.

I am talking about insurance similar to vehicle insurance where victims of the car owner/driver's stupidity can claim damages. In the UK if a car driver deliberately drives into another car, the insurance will pay out for the victim.

You confuse licensing for street use with simple possession - even in Califiornia, you can purchase any vehicle you can afford, have it flat towed to your private property, and never register, insure or need to interact with governmental entities. As long as the vehicle in question is never used on the public roadway, the state has no interest in what the owner does with the vehicle.

I have friends that own "track day" motorcycles and passenger vehicles that are not registered or licensed for street use, including late model bikes and cars purchased new, and once that vehicle was purchased and the sales tax paid, that was the last involvement w/ government those vehicles have seen.

A smart owner might file a certificate of non-operation if they ever plan to sell the vehicle on, but even that is voluntary.

You can do similar in the UK, it is called a Statutory Off Road Notice SORN. Since so many deaths with guns occur inside houses and on private land, I would not want an exemption for insuring guns like cars.