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

[Nessie]

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?

The UK does not have the problems the USA does with guns and our driving safety record is much better with 4.8 per 100,000 deaths to the USA's 13.9.

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/road-traffic-accidents/by-country/

 

[Cylinder]

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.

OK - car registration less farm vehicles. So felons can register and insure firearms like cars?

 

[jimbob]

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.

OK - car registration less farm vehicles. So felons can register and insure firearms like cars?

How does that follow?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Apparently you're having difficulty understanding my entire point. At this point, you're not going to understand either from willful ignorance, or some other reason. Not sure which it is though.

Oh, well that is clear. Sorry I ever misunderstood.

 

[Dr. Keith]

One is a poster on a skeptics' forum, the other is a governor of a very important state and has presidential ambitions IIRC. Whether Cuomo can actually do it is irrelevant - just the fact that he openly considers outright bans makes him unfit to hold the highest office as far as I'm concerned.

If that were the dumbest thing a politician said that week I would be surprised. The GOP is calling taxation theft and dismissing any basic understanding of science at the drop of a hat, hell Biden is giving people illegal self defense advice and Obama said "Jedi mind meld".

Sorry, I know none of those are important to you, but they are on the same playing field as Cuomo: stupid **** politicians say. The only recourse we have is to not vote for them. Shutting down compromise solutions every time one side or the other says something stupid means nothing gets done.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

I don't see how homes are used for criminal intent, unless you mean it is like this: (Not very safe for work but a bit silly - from the Chris Morris Series "Brass Eye")

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

Few crimes are planned in the street, homes (where OPSEC can easily be maintained) are the preferred location. Criminals use them as bases from which to carry out crimes, storage facilities to secure their unlawful gains and weapons, and distribution points for the sale of weapons, stolen merchandise and drugs. Kidnappers use them to sequester their victims. Hardly a serious crime in the US (and probably the world) doesn't have its origins in somebody's home.
Many, if not the majority of, serial killers prefer to use their homes as killing grounds for their victims.

Automobiles are used in bank robberies, drive by shootings, burglaries, drug smuggling and just about any other violent crime you can envision. It is the preferred method for transportation to and escape from in most crimes.

... but reasonable law abiding gun automobile owner does not guarantee they will not make a mistake or turn and kill. There should be insurance against that paid for by the gun automobile owners.

That assumes there are two separate groups the always law abiding and the never. What happens when the law abiding make a mistake or go rogue? Who pays then? I say gun automobile owners should.

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

If a mining companyautomobile owner stored dynamite an automobile where bank robbers could easily steal it, and it was subsequently stolen and used in bank robberies shouldn't they be liable?

Automobiles are easily stolen, and usually stored in plain sight with easy public access; on the street, in a driveway, etc. The average auto thief can defeat the ridiculously simple lock on virtually all cars in 60 seconds or less.
The theory by which you claim law abiding gun owners should be held accountable for the actions of criminals applies in exactly the same way to homes and automobiles.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Shutting down compromise solutions every time one side or the other says something stupid means nothing gets done.

I'd agree with you if a reasonable compromise had been offered by the anti-gun faction.
Insurance schemes, bans based on cosmetic appearance, and programs to effect total confiscation by increments do not fall into that category.

 

[jimbob]

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.

Few crimes are planned in the street, homes (where OPSEC can easily be maintained) are the preferred location. Criminals use them as bases from which to carry out crimes, storage facilities to secure their unlawful gains and weapons, and distribution points for the sale of weapons, stolen merchandise and drugs. Kidnappers use them to sequester their victims. Hardly a serious crime in the US (and probably the world) doesn't have its origins in somebody's home.
Many, if not the majority of, serial killers prefer to use their homes as killing grounds for their victims.

Automobiles are used in bank robberies, drive by shootings, burglaries, drug smuggling and just about any other violent crime you can envision. It is the preferred method for transportation to and escape from in most crimes.




Automobiles are easily stolen, and usually stored in plain sight with easy public access; on the street, in a driveway, etc. The average auto thief can defeat the ridiculously simple lock on virtually all cars in 60 seconds or less.
The theory by which you claim law abiding gun owners should be held accountable for the actions of criminals applies in exactly the same way to homes and automobiles.

Cars are rarely used as weapons. Sometimes they are, but nowhere as often as guns... They are used as weapons far more frequently than houses though.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Cars are rarely used as weapons. Sometimes they are, but nowhere as often as guns... They are used as weapons far more frequently than houses though.

You're trying to move the goal posts, Jim.
The theory that NY is using is that the insurance in necessary based on a presumption of criminal intent.
Not all weapon use is criminal. People can, and do, use them for legitimate purposes, specifically for self defense.
Your objection to firearms is that they are often used offensively, and that requires intent. No one accidentally or negligently robs a bank, performs a drive by, or kidnaps someone.
Firearms are rarely used as secure areas from which to plan a robbery, hide loot, or sell drugs. Houses frequently are, though.

 

[Cylinder]

Capt. Mark Kelly, husband of former Rep. Giffords and outspoken proponent of a new AWB, was spotted last week purchasing an AR-15 last week in Tuscon, AZ.

Mark E. Kelly, gun-control proponent and husband to former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, recently purchased an AR-15 (an "assault weapon," he called it)—which he now says he intended as an illustration of the need for more stringent gun laws.

Kelly reportedly bought the AR-15 and a 1911-style semi-automatic pistol at a gun store in Tucson, Arizona.

Breitbart News received a tip on this when Neil McCabe, editor of Guns & Patriots newsletter, contacted us on March 7 and said:


Mark E. Kelly, made purchases which included an AR-15--sometimes described as an "assault rifle"--at 3:30 pm on the afternoon of March 5 at Diamondback Police Supply, 170 S. Kolb Street, Tucson, AZ.

According to McCabe, witnesses to the purchases claimed Kelly purchased "high capacity" magazines as well.

Yestarday, after the purchase was publicized, Kelly made this Facebook post describing his intent:

Looks like the judiciary committee will vote on background checks next week. I just had a background check a few days ago when I went to my local gun store to buy a 45. As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15. Bought that too. Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes. I don't have possession yet but I'll be turning it over to the Tucson PD when I do. Scary to think of people buying guns like these without a background check at a gun show or the Internet. We really need to close the gun show and private seller loop hole.

Of course, what he describes is a straw purchase.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Of course, what he describes is a straw purchase.

Funny how that works. He walks in to a gun store specializing in high end defensive firearms, ostensibly to buy the premier self defense pistol in the world ( others will argue, but the 1911 series has been proven for over a hundred years without one major modification, and there are still 1911s out there who came off that first production run), then sees an AR-15 on the shelf and thinks " Gee, I bet the boys down at PD need something like that!", and shells out another $2K+ to buy it for them, but doesn't think to tell anybody about it until it hits the news.
If I didn't know liberals were incapable of lying to cover their own backsides, I'd be tempted to think he bought it for himself.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So if he bought it for himself... would that negate the argument for stricter background checks and closing the straw-purchase loopholes? Or is it your argument that anyone wanting more gun controls shouldn't be allowed to buy guns?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

So if he bought it for himself... would that negate the argument for stricter background checks and closing the straw-purchase loopholes? Or is it your argument that anyone wanting more gun controls shouldn't be allowed to buy guns?

As long as he is not a prohibited person ( and I don't believe he is) then I have no objection to him buying a gun at all.
Do you have any objection to his prevarication ( and it was obviously a prevarication, as the police are quite capable of arming themselves without relying on retired Navy Captains to buy guns for them) as to why he bought the firearm?

 

[uk_dave]

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

FYI:

Third party motor insurance

Under current legislation, third party liability resulting from the use of a motor vehicle is also compulsory, with a minimum limit of £1million for property damage but unlimited as far as personal injury is concerned.

All UK insurers satisfy the injury criteria and generally impose a limit for property damage of £20 million under a private car policy, with a smaller limit of £5 million for commercial vehicle policies although, again, this limit can be increased on application.

Examples where increased limits might be required would be for hauliers or logistics companies operating HGV’s or car transporters and such like, where the potential for large claims is increased due to the size, weight or load of the vehicle.

A certificate of insurance is issued for each vehicle (or blanket certificates for fleet policies) although their importance will diminish over time as the police can now log into a national database for confirmation of insurance on any vehicle, and it is possible to renew a road fund licence online without the need to produce the certificate.

http://www.centor.co.uk/faqs/what-insurance-is-compulsory

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

FYI:


http://www.centor.co.uk/faqs/what-insurance-is-compulsory

I didn't see anything about it covering intentional criminal acts.

 

[uk_dave]

Speeding and drink driving are intentional criminal acts

ETA : Just a quick google brought up the following:

http://www.forum.drinkdriving.org/have-you-been-caught-convicted-drink-driving/34185.htm

It's a discussion about people with a particular motor insurance carrier who have discovered that the policy allows for the insurer to reclaim costs if the insured was drunk at the time of the incident.

So the insurer will pay the third party costs, but will then attempt to reclaim these from their insured.

Something like that might be a good idea for the NY third party gun insurance. Let the Insurers bankrupt the criminal gun owner (if they can) rather than have the injured party go through the courts to get compensation.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Speeding and drink driving are intentional criminal acts

So your insurance will pay your tickets if you get caught? Somehow I don't think so.
Accidents caused by drunk drivers and speeders are covered ( at least in most jurisdictions here in the US), but there is no presumption of criminal intent.
There is the presumption of criminal intent with the NY legislation.
You can dodge all you want, but it doesn't change that.
And it is the presumption of intent that the gun owners are objecting to.

 

[uk_dave]

I don't see it.

By tickets you mean a fine or penalty for breaking the law?
How is that anything to do with a third party claim?

Methinks it is you who is dodging.
The motor insurance will pay out on a claim by a third party regardless of whether the insured person was unlucky or negligent, which would include driving while under the influence, which is a criminal act.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the insurer is going to pay the insured whatever fine or penalty is imposed if they are caught dui. How is that in anyway relevant to this discussion?

eta: The NY proposal was to cover for damage caused to a third party even if that was during a criminal activity. Well since, as you say, US motor insurers already do this with a DUI I don't see the problem.
Of course, the word 'accident' might be where you're getting hung up.

 

[jimbob]

So your insurance will pay your tickets if you get caught? Somehow I don't think so.
Accidents caused by drunk drivers and speeders are covered ( at least in most jurisdictions here in the US), but there is no presumption of criminal intent.
There is the presumption of criminal intent with the NY legislation.
You can dodge all you want, but it doesn't change that.
And it is the presumption of intent that the gun owners are objecting to.

No, the insurance will cover your victims if you have an accident whilst drunk in charge, but will then try to reclaim costs from you.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

I don't see it.

By tickets you mean a fine or penalty for breaking the law?
How is that anything to do with a third party claim?

Methinks it is you who is dodging.
The motor insurance will pay out on a claim by a third party regardless of whether the insured person was unlucky or negligent, which would include driving while under the influence, which is a criminal act.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the insurer is going to pay the insured whatever fine or penalty is imposed if they are caught dui. How is that in anyway relevant to this discussion?

eta: The NY proposal was to cover for damage caused to a third party even if that was during a criminal activity. Well since, as you say, US motor insurers already do this with a DUI I don't see the problem.
Of course, the word 'accident' might be where you're getting hung up.

The NY law states:
S 2353. FIREARM OWNERS INSURANCE POLICIES. 1. ANY PERSON IN THIS STATE WHO SHALL OWN A FIREARM SHALL, PRIOR TO SUCH OWNERSHIP, OBTAIN AND CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAIN A POLICY OF LIABILITY INSURANCE IN AN AMOUNT NOT LESS THAN ONE MILLION DOLLARS SPECIFICALLY COVERING ANY DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ANY NEGLIGENT OR WILLFUL ACTS INVOLVING THE USE OF SUCH FIREARM WHILE IT IS OWNED BY SUCH PERSON. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN SUCH INSURANCE SHALL RESULT IN THE IMMEDIATE REVOCATION OF SUCH OWNER'S REGISTRATION, LICENSE AND ANY OTHER PRIVILEGE TO OWN SUCH FIREARM.

This is a presumption of intent. No insurance, not here or in the UK ( except in this one instance for the NY gun owners) does insurance cover a willful unlawful act.
Claiming that auto insurance covers a third party in the event of a DUI overlooks the fact that the individual, while breaking the law, is not willfully attempting to harm another person.