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

[Ziggurat]

CDC stats on who is murdered and where

We weren't talking about murder, we were talking about accidents. What does murder have to do with accidents?

 

[Ziggurat]

There even exists homeowners policies which could cover third party liability to do with guns.

But nothing specifically for owning and operating a gun away from home. Nothing to cover you for accidents while out hunting, or at the target range or while concealed carrying in the street.

That's not true. I just provided an example of home insurance doing exactly that: providing liability insurance for damage caused by a gun that was used off of the homeowner's property.

The need for liability insurance is established for cars and motorbikes, but guns are sacrosanct.

Gun ownership is a right. Driving a car on roads is a privilege. You can attach conditions to a privilege that you cannot attach to a right. So yes, guns are sacrosanct, and until the constitution is amended, they should be, because we are a nation of laws, and the constitution is the supreme law of our country.

We're told that accidents are so rare, there is no need for insurance. Well, if that's the case, insurance should be dirt cheap so why not have it anyway?

1) Most homeowners, and many renters, already do.
2) The fact that it's a good idea to have something doesn't mean the government should require it. You need more to your argument than that.

 

[GeeMack]

Please evidence the claims you made in post #1249 about the number of injuries from furniture and 99% to 1% of gun owners.

It should take less than 2 minutes to locate the information. Here's how it's done.

 

[WildCat]

CDC stats on who is murdered and where

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6106a1.htm#tab10

Of the instances where the relationship between murdered and victim is known, spouse or partner is the most common, closely followed by friend/acquaintance. Indeed strangers and rival gang members are low down the list.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6106a1.htm#tab12

The most common by location for a homicide is at home with 53.1%.

So unless law abiding gun owners and their guns are being used way out of the usual when they kill it is most likely to be people they know in the home. You would expect that as law abiding gun owners are not going out gang banging or robbing stores.

I thought we were talking about accidents?

 

[WildCat]

We're told that accidents are so rare, there is no need for insurance. Well, if that's the case, insurance should be dirt cheap so why not have it anyway?

This question was answered many times by different people in this thread. I see no reason to think you're suddenly going to accept the answer this time.

 

[Nessie]

We weren't talking about murder, we were talking about accidents. What does murder have to do with accidents?

I have repeatedly said the insurance is not just to cover accidents, but when gun owners go rogue or do something reckless.

You are doing that stats thing again where you pick out one thing, like long guns and try and lessen the problem by only looking at part of it.

Throughout this thread I have been looking at all legal gun owners, all guns and all acts by them and with their guns that result in unjustifiable deaths and say they should be insured.

 

[Cylinder]

Of the instances where the relationship between murdered and victim is known, spouse or partner is the most common, closely followed by friend/acquaintance. Indeed strangers and rival gang members are low down the list.

That's a meaningless statement. Over half of the total firearm homicides have an unknown/missing relationship and those will skew heavily toward non-spouse. That's nearly 5 times as many unknowns as spouses.

 

[Nessie]

It should take less than 2 minutes to locate the information. Here's how it's done.

Please evidence your claims.

 

[Nessie]

I thought we were talking about accidents?

I think you want to restrict the conversation to just one instance where legal gun owners or their guns kill or injure. That way you can say it is not so bad and so we don't need to insure them.

 

[Nessie]

That's a meaningless statement. Over half of the total firearm homicides have an unknown/missing relationship and those will skew heavily toward non-spouse. That's nearly 5 times as many unknowns as spouses.

Why will they skew towards non spouses? Can you show me why they are unknown/missing? There maybe certain records which do not record relationship.

 

[Ziggurat]

I have repeatedly said the insurance is not just to cover accidents, but when gun owners go rogue or do something reckless.

Murder isn't doing something reckless (which is covered under accidents), it's a crime. And as for what you've said about insurance and crime/mental illness, well...

I am not making any claims that insurance would deal with criminals or nuts.

If you aren't actually contradicting yourself, then you sure aren't making your meaning understandable to me.

Insurance won't stop crime. Most criminals won't bother with insurance, and for those that do get insurance that covers their criminal activity, it provides a perverse incentive by actually minimizing the cost that they pay for their crime. And the real problem with murder is that the victims are dead, not that the perpetrator doesn't have enough assets to settle a claim.

Throughout this thread I have been looking at all legal gun owners, all guns and all acts by them and with their guns that result in unjustifiable deaths and say they should be insured.

Your murder statistics don't distinguish between legal gun owners and illegal gun owners. So it's not relevant to the argument you seem to be trying to make.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why will they skew towards non spouses?

Because it's easier to get away with murder if you have less connection to the victim, because then the potential suspect pool the police have to search through is much larger. A spouse is basically as close as you can get to the victim, and they're always on the police's radar for a murder.

Can you show me why they are unknown/missing?

Some large percentage of the unknowns will be because the crime is unsolved, obviously.

 

[Nessie]

Murder isn't doing something reckless (which is covered under accidents), it's a crime. And as for what you've said about insurance and crime/mental illness, well...



If you aren't actually contradicting yourself, then you sure aren't making your meaning understandable to me.

Insurance won't stop crime. Most criminals won't bother with insurance, and for those that do get insurance that covers their criminal activity, it provides a perverse incentive by actually minimizing the cost that they pay for their crime. And the real problem with murder is that the victims are dead, not that the perpetrator doesn't have enough assets to settle a claim.



Your murder statistics don't distinguish between legal gun owners and illegal gun owners. So it's not relevant to the argument you seem to be trying to make.

I think gun owners should be compulsorily insured like car drivers to cover accidents and reckless acts to pay for the costs when they kill or injure. That criminals will not take out insurance is not a reason to argue no one should have to take out insurance. Do you understand that?

 

[Nessie]

Because it's easier to get away with murder if you have less connection to the victim, because then the potential suspect pool the police have to search through is much larger. A spouse is basically as close as you can get to the victim, and they're always on the police's radar for a murder.



Some large percentage of the unknowns will be because the crime is unsolved, obviously.

Or are they just not recorded? Fact is where known, homicides are most common between people who know each other. I am pointing out insurance would not just be about accidents.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think gun owners should be compulsorily insured like car drivers to cover accidents and reckless acts to pay for the costs when they kill or injure.

That's nice. But since you can't vote here, why should I care? If all you have on offer is your opinion, well, frankly it doesn't matter.

That criminals will not take out insurance is not a reason to argue no one should have to take out insurance. Do you understand that?

But that was never my argument. The point about criminals not taking out insurance is very much relevant when evaluating the impact that such a law would have. And that's relevant to any argument based upon the supposed costs vs. benefits of such a law.

Of course, none of that matters if you're just asserting your opinion. But again, if all you have to offer is an opinion, I don't care.

 

[Ziggurat]

Or are they just not recorded?

Most were probably not known. According to the FBI, there were 15,399 murders in 2009 (the year of your data). According to this story, there are about 6,000 unsolved homicides every year, for a percentage of around 39%. That would make up the majority of your 54% unknown/missing category.

ETA: and what's the point of insurance in the case of spousal murder? The surviving spouse is usually the primary claimant in a wrongful death suit, but that obviously won't work. Hell, even letting the children be claimants is a problem, because the murderer might see it as a way to help out their children. How much good is insurance really going to do in such a case?

 

[jimbob]

I already pointed out the impossibility of that. Guns can be in operating condition for well over 100 years, and you can't compel someone to maintain insurance on something they no longer possess.

You put a statute of limitations on it, set (say) five years after the last registered owner reported it missing/stolen etc.

 

[jimbob]

So is any other situation where you're injured by someone with no assets and no insurance. What makes guns so special?


I don't recall that post.

That, with car accidents, there are a lot of injuries and deaths due to firearms.

 

[Giz]

You put a statute of limitations on it, set (say) five years after the last registered owner reported it missing/stolen etc.

So the insurance would have to cover (for example): homeowner has gun stolen in burglary, declares it has been stolen and then 4 years later the gun is used in a bank robbery...the original owner's insurance from 4 years back is liable for any claims from the bank/customers etc?

 

[jimbob]

So the insurance would have to cover (for example): homeowner has gun stolen in burglary, declares it has been stolen and then 4 years later the gun is used in a bank robbery...the original owner's insurance from 4 years back is liable for any claims from the bank/customers etc?

If adequate security precautions hadn't been taken then, yes.

It seems that about half the firearms in the US are stored unlocked and about 16% are stored unlocked and loaded.

That strikes me as negligent.