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

uk_dave said:
Good grief.

You think it's a 'my county's better than yours' argument?

We (the UK posters) have difficulty understanding why a public liability insurance would not be applicable to gun ownership in the US.

US posters, such as yourself, say "It won't work, no insurer will touch it because it has the 'wilful intent' clause included"

We then debate whether or not such clauses are already prevalent in third party liability policies, such as that for car insurance.

We are met with incredulity from some US posters who believe it's all a load of faeces, because they just can't get their heads around the notion that a third party liability insurance would cover even criminal acts.

We have a bit of a song and dance over what third party insurance actually means; does it cover vandalism to your car? Will it pay your speeding fines?

The conclusion is that the US insurance system doesn't appear to cover 'wilful intent', though I have to say reading the link you provided regarding business insurance it is in no way cut and dried.

But now you want to believe that it's a 'superiority' thing, because UK insurance does things differently and we use that as an example of how a gun insurance could be implemented.

I mean, come on, get the chip off your shoulder!

Yes, your biases are definitely showing again. It would appear that in your eyes people can't have honest intent, whether it is someone highlighting how easy it is to purchase a deadly weapon in the US, or someone campaigning for tighter gun control or a bunch of people on an internet forum kicking around ideas. No none of these people can be honest in your eyes, they have to be trying to feel superior to you, trying to be elite and and have ulterior motives for their ideas.

Once again the battle lines are drawn and you're going to hunker down and stick your fingers in your ears because what you're hearing is unpalatable to you.
Click to expand...
Nessie brought it up, re-read the post.
Insurance companies in the the US aren't required to cover intentional criminal acts. I didn't just use the example of business insurance, I used homeowners insurance (which is more applicable) as well. Something you neglected to mention in the above post, an exclusion which goes a long way toward showing how "honest" the anti-gun faction is in debating the subject.

Unless you can show a direct causal relationship between the ability to own a firearm and the likelihood that it will be used by the owner in the commission of a crime, the relative ease by which one can purchase a firearm is moot.

I still haven't seen where insurance companies in the UK are required to cover intentional criminal acts. Not acts arising from an accident or negligence where a crime was somehow involved (such as a DUI) but covering the willful criminal act itself. The NY legislation requires exactly this type of coverage.
This is the part we (the US posters) can't get our head around. The rest of the insurance objections are based simply on the fact that most of those claims would already be covered by other ,already existing, types of insurance.
 
WildCat said:
My first thought was not that they were concerned about people buying for illegal weapons, but to prevent people who don't own any weapons (legal or not) at all from buying them solely to resell at a higher price thanks to the shortage. IOW, to prevent scalping.

Because I really doubt the illegal weapons holders are the ones burning through all that ammo, it's not like the local gangbangers and convicted felons are doing time at the range honing up on their marksmanship. I doubt most of those guys even ever fired their gun prior to using it in a drive-by or to shoot a convenience store clerk.
Click to expand...
Coupled with:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbe...ecurity-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/

1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It's Time For A National Conversation
Click to expand...
 
Chuck Guiteau said:
Unless you can show a direct causal relationship between the ability to own a firearm and the likelihood that it will be used by the owner in the commission of a crime, the relative ease by which one can purchase a firearm is moot.
Click to expand...

Straw purchases are significant.

Why not make the Registered buyer liable for that.

Your constant complaints about perceived dishonesty are a bit silly.
 
uk_dave said:
I wonder how people would feel if these were pharmaceutical companies who faced with a favourite product becoming prescription only decide not to supply the drug to any county hospitals?
Click to expand...

Is that supposed to resemble an analogy?

If my state banned banned some medication, I would expect it to be banned for doctors as well. If the law provided an exemption, I would fully support a drug company refusing to sell it to doctors from this state.
 
Chuck Guiteau said:
I'm not singling this post out, it is merely the latest in the "liability insurance" analogy.

I can't say about the UK, but in the US insurance companies don't pay out for intentional acts.

"Common Law Principle - No Coverage For Intentional Acts
As a matter of public policy, the law will not allow a business owner to insure against intentional acts or crimes. The reason is because it is assumed that if this is allowed, then businesses will not take steps to stop such actions or will engage in such acts because the acts are insured. The law presumes business owners will treat this as a cost of doing business rather than taking steps to stop the event from occurring. In fact, most states allow insurance only for fortuitous events - events that are "accidents."

We have what is known ans an "intentional acts exclusion".
http://businessinsure.about.com/od/liabilityinsurance/f/intactfaq.htm
The smae applies to homeowners:
"Since liability policies typically do not provide coverage for intentional acts, there may be a question as to whether the policyholder acted intentionally. "
http://realestate.findlaw.com/owning-a-home/what-does-a-home-insurance-policy-cover.html
And:
"Most homeowners' insurance policies provide insurance coverage for household members for their conduct both within and outside of the home. However, there are usually exclusionary provisions, which preclude coverage for intentional acts, and more specifically, for intentional illegal or criminal acts."http://www.bostonaccidentinjurylawyer.com/2009/01/when-does-an-an-injury-arising.html

The NY law requires coverage for intentional criminal acts.
A good faith claim might be made that having such insurance could prompt even further negligence and/or criminal acts as the insured would know he/she was relieved of any possible civil liability and the insurance company would be forced to "step into their shoes' to defend the act.
Click to expand...
More worrisome to me is that the NY insurance would tend to make shooters keep shooting until they were sure the target was dead; no medical expenses or pain and suffering to worry about.
 
Chuck Guiteau said:
I assume you are seriously inferring that the police are experiencing a shortage of firearms on a level making it necessary to rely on the charity of the general population to provide them with armament.
Click to expand...

I think AB is just using sarcasm. That's how I read it, at least.
 
jimbob said:
Straw purchases are significant.

Why not make the Registered buyer liable for that.

Your constant complaints about perceived dishonesty are a bit silly.
Click to expand...
Your post does not contain anything that establishes the required direct causal relationship.
There are already laws against straw purchases.
 
Chuck Guiteau said:
I assume you are seriously inferring that the police are experiencing a shortage of firearms on a level making it necessary to rely on the charity of the general population to provide them with armament.
Otherwise, your post doesn't seem to have a point.
Click to expand...
As yet sfaik this isn't a problem for authorities, but will become so as laws in specific jurisdictions are in place to limit guns civilians can purchase or even own.
 
Last edited:
AlBell said:
More worrisome to me is that the NY insurance would tend to make shooters keep shooting until they were sure the target was dead; no medical expenses or pain and suffering to worry about.
Click to expand...

There is always a possibility under any circumstances that an individual will, in the immediate after math consider his personal finances over the relative necessity of resolving a given situation.
The law does not require that you kill an aggressor, neither does it require that you shoot to wound. The law provides an affirmative defense to the charge of homicide/aggravated assault/ applicable statute only so far as to what force is necessary to insure the threat has been neutralized.

What concerns me is that this particular law,like so many others being demanded by the liberal left, will have no impact on actually reducing violent crime, but will only affect law abiding gun owners.

Contrary to the assertions of some here, who brand everyone not in favor of outright confiscation, via single ban or incremental steps, as a "gun nut", most law abiding gun owners (which make up the vast majority of gun owners in the US) are in favor of legislation which targets criminals without overly infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
Background checks are a good example. No matter how many times we state, individually nd collectively, that we favor background checks the anti-gun faction merely ignores the statement and responds with "well, what about background checks? Do you want guns to be sold to everyone, including criminals?" or words to that effect, just as if we never indicated an approval for background checks to begin with.
I'm not mentioning any names, in compliance with rule 12, but you won't have to look back very far in this thread before you'll see examples of this.
The same goes for the straw purchase complaint. No matter how many times it is pointed out that straw purchases are already illegal, it continually comes back up as if no one had ever bothered to inform anyone that the practice has violated Federal law for several decades, and the problem isn't in enacting new legislation that covers straw purchasers, it is the laxity with which the existing law is being enforced.
This very laxity is championed by the left as the reason that "new", "stricter" laws are necessary, and any lawmaker with the temerity to point it out is ridiculed by the liberals.

As to the NY legislation ( which apparently is being picked up as the newest method of preventing lawful gun ownership by other liberal leaning states) my position is simple.
1.Does it do anything to directly curb violent crime?
2.Is it in line with the generally accepted reasons for mandating insurance by law?
3.Can the State provide a compelling interest in requiring it and do so to the exclusion of all less intrusive means?

And my objections are:
1. No. It is ridiculous to think that violent criminals are even going to pay attention to such a statute. the theory that it will reduce the number of stolen firearms is both indirect and ignores that criminal already have an available supply, and places the burden for such criminal acts on the victim for not reporting in a timely manner.
2. No. No other insurance is mandated in anticipation of an intentional criminal act. Just the opposite, insurance companies have an exclusionary clause that denies claims based upon intentional criminal acts and there is a wealth of case law which supports them.
3. If there is, I have yet to see it.
The only thing I've heard from its supporters here on this board is that it would provide a fund for victims. That it is to be paid for by citizens wishing to exercise a valid Constitutional right is as abhorrent as a poll tax or literacy requirement.
If victims need a fund (in places where there is not already a mechanism specifically for this) then let the government impose a tax on all citizens who, by definition, have the ability to exercise that right, whether they choose to do so or not.
 
AlBell said:
As yet sfaik this isn't a problem for authorities, but will become so as laws in specific jurisdictions are in place to limit guns civilians can purchase or even own.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. The law enforcement agencies still have the ability to negotiate direct sales with the major manufacturers. i didn't see Glock, USA, SIg-Sauer, SMith & Wesson, or Colt on those lists.
 
Chuck Guiteau said:
Another trifecta!

1. He bought another handgun, which automatically places it into circulation according to a multitude of posts by the anti-gun faction, making it available for accidents, misuse, suicide, impulse murder, and theft. Now you are implying this is not the case.

2. For the same reason A person might decide on a Ferrari over a Chevrolet, or an Omega over a Timex. AR-15's are no different than any other semi-automatic rifle, and superior to many in certain circumstances.
A better question might be to ask why you practice Thai boxing over ballet.

3. There are tools for enforcing, namely Federal laws which specifically prohibit sales made with the intent of transferring the firearm to another entity, and which CPT Gifford intentionally violated if you buy his excuse. It's incredible to believe you have engaged in a debate on gun control and are apparently unaware of this.
As to lack of enforcement, if the situation is a dire as the anti-gun crowd makes it, why is there no cry for enforcement? The anti-gun faction has taken just the opposite approach and shouted down or ridiculed anyone even attempting to ask that the existing laws be enforced.
There appears to be a pattern evolving here.
Pass an firearms restriction, but don't enforce it. Then, when it fails to show any success, demand more restrictions (and don't enforce them either). If you keep it up long enough you have, by increments, legislated away all practical means of exercising the right to keep and bear arms.

As to CPT Gifford's "publicity stunt", I find it curious that he did not bother to inform the press beforehand (which would have gathered obvious positive press and, in light of his notoriety, been well covered my the mainstream media) and chose to wait until after he had been exposed to make the claim.
" I wasn't stealing the cookie, Mommy. I was going to bring them to you!"
Click to expand...

1 buying a gun ours it into circulation? That's not right. Selling them does.
2 I thought you didn't have a problem with that gun, note you do?
3 straw purchases have to be proven as such. That's very hard to do without requiring background checks on all purchases and only allowing sales of arms by dealers.

Nice try.:rolleyes:
 
thaiboxerken said:
1 buying a gun ours it into circulation? That's not right. Selling them does.
2 I thought you didn't have a problem with that gun, note you do?
3 straw purchases have to be proven as such. That's very hard to do without requiring background checks on all purchases and only allowing sales of arms by dealers.

Nice try.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but without trying to make this personal, I don't have a clue as to what you're trying to say. Please re-read your post and then rephrase it in a more comprehensible manner.
Thank you.
 
Chuck Guiteau said:
I'm sorry, but without trying to make this personal, I don't have a clue as to what you're trying to say. Please re-read your post and then rephrase it in a more comprehensible manner.
Thank you.
Click to expand...

I'll try later. Doing this on a phone sucks.
 
Chuck Guiteau said:
I assume you are seriously inferring that the police are experiencing a shortage of firearms on a level making it necessary to rely on the charity of the general population to provide them with armament.
Otherwise, your post doesn't seem to have a point.
Click to expand...

Well, not exactly pointless, he mocked a few different gun and supplies' companies....LOL....:rolleyes:
 
Cylinder said:
Is that supposed to resemble an analogy?

If my state banned banned some medication, I would expect it to be banned for doctors as well. If the law provided an exemption, I would fully support a drug company refusing to sell it to doctors from this state.
Click to expand...

Did I type 'banned'?

I asked what if the medication was made prescription only.

It would still be available to the general public but regulated via a doctor.

You took from that the idea that the medicine would have been banned, because basically it's the only way you can justify in your own mind the actions of the arms dealers with regard to gun control.

A little bit of self awareness on your part might be helpful to you.
 
bynmdsue said:
AKA a "silencer".
Click to expand...

Ahhh ty. I'm sure they're a big supplier to law enforcement.

Actually, I wonder how many of those dealers listed have ever sold a weapon to a state agency.

Not that it matters tremendously and as has been pointed out above, the actual major weapons manufacturers don't appear to be listed either, it's just dealers.
 
uk_dave said:
You took from that the idea that the medicine would have been banned, because basically it's the only way you can justify in your own mind the actions of the arms dealers with regard to gun control.

A little bit of self awareness on your part might be helpful to you.
Click to expand...

Actually I took that idea from the manufacturers' policies of sales to governments/agents of ban states.

Thanks for the concern, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom