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

Nessie said:
No one is saying that the owner of the car/gun is covered. What is important is that their victim is if they use the car/gun to kill or try and kill them. We have shown (I have posted the same stuff as others not realising they had already posted it) that the victim is covered.
Click to expand...

?! The purpose of insurance is to indemnify the purchaser. How could they not be covered but the victim is? :confused:

That is all we ask for is gun owners insure themselves to pay for the people who they shoot, whether by accident or deliberately or recklessly. That is how UK car insurance works, so it is doable.
Click to expand...

That is not how UK car insurance works. I've already posted an excerpt from a UK car auto insurance company saying it would only cover accidental damages. No insurance will cover damages from intentional criminal acts. That would give criminals a license to commit crimes without fear of financial harm.
 
Newtons Bit said:
I already answered this, if you had bothered to read my posts. In effect, there are different types of liability. The Road Traffic Act only covers up to strict liability, which excludes things like murder.
Click to expand...

No it states (Sec145 (3) a RTA 1988) "....insure him or them in respect of any civil liability which may be incurred by him or them as a result of an event related to the use of the vehicle in Great Britain."

So murder someone with your car and you can be sued and insurance is there to cover such.
 
Newtons Bit said:
That is not how UK car insurance works. I've already posted an excerpt from a UK car auto insurance company saying it would only cover accidental damages. No insurance will cover damages from intentional criminal acts. That would give criminals a license to commit crimes without fear of financial harm.
Click to expand...

And both Nessie and I have posted extracts from the Road Traffic Act which stipulates that the insured must be covered for any liability arising out of use of the vehicle.

There is no proviso that this has to be legal use.

Motor insurance companies will have a tendency to dumb down the language to make the policy details accessible to their customers. People want insurance to cover them for 'accidents', but the definition of an 'accident' is not included (as far as I can see) in the policy, but the Road Traffic Act is directly referenced.

It's a weird and wonderful world in which we live.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
?! The purpose of insurance is to indemnify the purchaser. How could they not be covered but the victim is? :confused:
Click to expand...

Read what we have posted, the law and the policy is there to make sure third parties are covered. Indeed the only insurance required to drive is third party only. Then comes third party, fire and theft. Finally fully comprehensive which covers the driver as well.

The whole point is to make sure drivers can pay back others for any damage they do.


That is not how UK car insurance works. I've already posted an excerpt from a UK car auto insurance company saying it would only cover accidental damages. No insurance will cover damages from intentional criminal acts. That would give criminals a license to commit crimes without fear of financial harm.
Click to expand...

I have shown how the driver is not covered for criminal acts, but their victims are. That would be the whole point of making gun owners get insurance, to cover paying for any damage they do so victims get compensated.

If I injure you by deliberately running you over or shooting you, I must have insurance so you can claim for damages and costs of your medical care. If I get injured whilst running you over or shooting you, I am not covered and I have to find my own costs.
 
Nessie said:
No it states (Sec145 (3) a RTA 1988) "....insure him or them in respect of any civil liability which may be incurred by him or them as a result of an event related to the use of the vehicle in Great Britain."

So murder someone with your car and you can be sued and insurance is there to cover such.
Click to expand...

Murder is not a civil liability.
 
jimbob said:
But if you vandalise your own car, then that wouldn't be a third party.
Click to expand...
Did I ever claim my car wouldn't be covered if someone else vandalized it?

But it would be covered by my insurance, not the insurance of whoever did the vandalizing.
 
WildCat said:
Pure propaganda. Even the story shows this:

"Detailed data on gun ownership is scarce. Though some states reported household gun ownership rates in the 1990s, it was not until the early 2000s that questions on the presence of guns at home were asked on a broad federal public health survey of several hundred thousand people, making it possible to see the rates in all states."

So basically they're just making it up, they have no data dating to the 1970s and in fact the only good data they have is from the early 2000s.
Click to expand...

How do they acoount for the folks who just are not going to tell a voice on the phone that they keep guns in the house? Hell, in person, unless it's a cop asking I always answer no.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Not similar at all, since he's not calling for the banning of all guns. Stricter background checks and the elimination of straw-purchase loopholes is what he's asking for.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense. He'd still be approved, as AFAIK he's an upstanding citizen. Wouldn't it make more sense to try to get a prohibited person through the background check? He has proven nothing, and I am very skeptical of his claim of making a point. Especially considering he said nothing about it until after.
 
thaiboxerken said:
So your issue is that he bought the gun at all? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

My issue is he hit the trifecta of gun control stupidity.

1. He has no problem putting another handgun, the weapon of choice for criminals, in circulation yet wants to ban modern sporting rifles.

2. He picks up a AR-15 as an impulse. Why does he need an AR-15?

3. His CYA described a straw purchase - something that's already prohibited.
 
1. How did he place a handgun into circulation?
2. Why does anyone need an AR-15?
3. Prohibited but not enforced, nor are there tools to enforce the prohibition.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Murder is not a civil liability.
Click to expand...

That's right. The state doesn't tend to sue a criminal if murder is committed, they send the perp to prison. :rolleyes:

The relatives of the victim, however, could sue the criminal for civil liability which the insurance company would be obliged to meet.

I know it's very important to you to show that the NY gun insurance proposal will fall at this hurdle, but you're having to go through some mental gymnastics to try to make a pre-existing situation with regard to third party motor insurance liability fit your argument.

Maybe it wouldn't work in the US, after all, it seems as if your motor insurance industry works differently to that in the UK. All that we have shown on this thread is that it could work if the same system of insurance was adopted.
 
uk_dave said:
Maybe it wouldn't work in the US, after all, it seems as if your motor insurance industry works differently to that in the UK. All that we have shown on this thread is that it could work if the same system of insurance was adopted.
Click to expand...

There certainly seems to be a misunderstanding of the concept of 'third party' motor insurance as it's understood in the UK.

WildCat said:
Did I ever claim my car wouldn't be covered if someone else vandalized it?

But it would be covered by my insurance, not the insurance of whoever did the vandalizing.
Click to expand...

for example, where the bolded part would not be true holding UK-style third party motor insurance.
 
Newtons Bit said:
?! The purpose of insurance is to indemnify the purchaser. How could they not be covered but the victim is? :confused:
Click to expand...

Third party insurance as mandated by law, or technically Road Traffic Act insurance. This is backed up by the Motor Insurers Bureau to compensate victims of uninsured or untraced drivers.

Re criminal acts:

Verdict in Hardy vs Motor Insurers Bureau 1964

Lord Denning MR repeated the broad rule of public policy that no person can claim indemnity or reparation for own wilful and culpable crime. However the policy of insurance, which a motorist is required by statute to take out, must cover any liability which may be incurred by him arising out of the use of the vehicle by him. That would be wide enough to cover, in general terms, any use by him of the vehicle, be it an innocent use or a criminal use, or be it a murderous use or a playful use. There was no doubt here that there had been an intention to injure the Claimant, but that did not preclude him claiming against the MIB. This was a liability which the culpable motorist was required to cover under section 207 of the then Road Traffic Act 207
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Pure propaganda. Even the story shows this:

"Detailed data on gun ownership is scarce. Though some states reported household gun ownership rates in the 1990s, it was not until the early 2000s that questions on the presence of guns at home were asked on a broad federal public health survey of several hundred thousand people, making it possible to see the rates in all states."

So basically they're just making it up, they have no data dating to the 1970s and in fact the only good data they have is from the early 2000s.
Click to expand...

As I said before, it's going to get to the stage I mentioned in the quoted post due to:

- Gun Owners being largely "old, white, conserative males".
- Demographics are shifting towards young, minorities and women who are vigorously more supportive of Gun Control and far less likely to own guns.
- Gun Owners, instead of compromising, go for all or nothing.
- When the Demographics have turned in their favour, the latter will just say, "Here's all or nothing. All is Japan's gun laws. Nothing is well, nothing. Take it or leave it."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom