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

[Giz]

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

While I see your point, surely a more morally fitting target of funds that society could seize for restitution would be that of the criminal (the bank robbers, in the above example). Otherwise, you are judging the victim of a burglary as partially responsible for a bank robbery. While his property may have to some extent enabled the crime, it seems morally perverse to blame him for it... do criminals have no agency?

If burglars fallout over how to divvy up the payout from a robbery and kill each other, would you hold the homeowner partially responsible for the murders as they'd had so much lucrative stuff (widescreen TV, jewelery etc) to nick that it encouraged or enabled violence down the road?

I just want to see where your moral compass is pointing here...

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.

Probably depends on the situation. In the burglary crazed UK (or where I live for that matter), it might well be negligent to not lock them in a safe. In some areas, in homes without children/felons, perhaps not so much. And as for stored unlocked and loaded… I imagine that describes people who keep a gun for home defence. (i.e. it being in a "ready to use condition" is intentional rather than a result of negligence).

 

[WildCat]

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.

You have only the gun owner's word as to how they were stored.

 

[bynmdsue]

You have only the gun owner's word as to how they were stored.

It's a simple standard really,

Gun gets stolen - Not adequately secured

Gun doesn't get stolen - Adequately secured (or no-one's tried to steal it)

Even if they just pick up your gun safe and carry it away to open at their leisure, well, maybe it should've been bolted to the floor then, hmmm?

 

[GeeMack]

It's a simple standard really,

Gun gets stolen - Not adequately secured

Gun doesn't get stolen - Adequately secured (or no-one's tried to steal it)

Even if they just pick up your gun safe and carry it away to open at their leisure, well, maybe it should've been bolted to the floor then, hmmm?

That seems like a reasonable standard. Well, okay, at least as reasonable as any of these other silly arguments and logical fallacies put forth opposing gun ownership or favoring increased restrictions on law abiding gun owners.

Since all my guns are usually inside my residence, it would require some combination of burglary, breaking and entering, and/or trespassing for someone to steal them. And then there's that little matter of the theft itself. It would be somebody else violating at least one law any way about it. Steal my gun, kill someone with it, it's your fault not mine. Same as if you steal my butcher knife, baseball bat, or tire iron. I even have a shovel outside, in plain sight, where pretty much anyone could walk off with it. And if they did, and if they used it to kill someone, it's still not my responsibility.

 

[jimbob]

You have only the gun owner's word as to how they were stored.

Many insurance policies pay out in the event of a burglary, but won't if the house was left unlocked at the time.

There is nothing conceptually different in this proposal.

 

[WildCat]

Many insurance policies pay out in the event of a burglary, but won't if the house was left unlocked at the time.

There is nothing conceptually different in this proposal.

Just how does the insurance company determine whether or not the guns were unlocked? Or the house for that matter?

 

[Ziggurat]

Many insurance policies pay out in the event of a burglary, but won't if the house was left unlocked at the time.

That's the first I've ever heard of that. Do you have evidence for this?

 

[Nessie]

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.



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.

This is a debate forum, I don't care if the USA continues to watch as its citizens slaughter each other like no other country in the Western World. I can still discuss the issues.

 

[Nessie]

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?

The insurance could be claimed against for any health care needed for the wife, funeral expenses, child care as the murderer goes to prison or is executed.

The are far more injuries than homicides which insurance would cover.

 

[Nessie]

Just how does the insurance company determine whether or not the guns were unlocked? Or the house for that matter?

Is there a smashed up or missing gun safe? Is there a broken window, door or lock to get into the house?

 

[Nessie]

That's the first I've ever heard of that. Do you have evidence for this?

I can back that up with conditions in my insurance for both vehicles and the house. If I fail to properly secure either it can affect a claim, though depending on the exact circumstances it may or may not prevent a pay out by the insurance co.

 

[Ziggurat]

The insurance could be claimed against for any health care needed for the wife, funeral expenses, child care as the murderer goes to prison or is executed.

The are far more injuries than homicides which insurance would cover.

But the firearm-specific risk of injury or death is much lower than the general risk of injury or death. So why do we need a specific insurance for firearms, when all of this can be accomplished through general life/disability insurance? After all, it's stupid to only insure against a minor risk, and if you insure against the larger generic risk, that will include the minor risk as well. And we don't make life or disability insurance mandatory (beyond social security), so why do so for this specific minor risk? It's special pleading.

I can back that up with conditions in my insurance for both vehicles and the house. If I fail to properly secure either it can affect a claim, though depending on the exact circumstances it may or may not prevent a pay out by the insurance co.

Insurance in Scotland may operate differently than insurance in the US in this regard. Do you have any evidence that insurance in the US works this way?

 

[Ziggurat]

This is a debate forum, I don't care if the USA continues to watch as its citizens slaughter each other like no other country in the Western World. I can still discuss the issues.

Yes, you can. But I think you missed my point: that discussion shouldn't be based upon your opinion. If you've got facts, logical deductions, etc, then your identity is irrelevant, and those things should be evaluated on their own merits. However, although you are indeed free to tell me your opinion, I have no reason to consider it relevant to anything.

 

[WildCat]

Is there a smashed up or missing gun safe? Is there a broken window, door or lock to get into the house?

Locks can be jimmied (and it's very easy to jimmy many locks) or picked, and entire gun safes can be stolen. Or a previous owner or tenant could have had extra keys made.

 

[jimbob]

Locks can be jimmied (and it's very easy to jimmy many locks) or picked, and entire gun safes can be stolen. Or a previous owner or tenant could have had extra keys made.

Insurers in the UK manage to deal with this.

I can't see anything newer than 2001, but this BJS file (PDF)

stated that in 1997 just over 39% of offenders obtained their guns from a friend or family member.

Another 9.9% obtained the guns directly through theft with 8.4% from a fence or black market

An earlier BJS report: PDF here states that in 1994 ABOUT 32% of traced guns were three years old or under.

A 5-year statute of limitations for the reported theft would cause a significant dent in the stolen guns - or indeed make it harder on their friends if criminals obtained their guns from them.

 

[Ziggurat]

A 5-year statute of limitations for the reported theft would cause a significant dent in the stolen guns - or indeed make it harder on their friends if criminals obtained their guns from them.

You know what such a system would encourage gun owners to do? Report their guns stolen right now, proactively.

 

[Sabretooth]

Why not apply this to an event and see how it works?

Let's say this law existed in CT and Ms. Lanza had such insurance.

Does the insurance pay out for Sandy Hook?

 

[Aber]

You know what such a system would encourage gun owners to do? Report their guns stolen right now, proactively.

And if they used them after they'd reported them stolen...

 

[jimbob]

Why not apply this to an event and see how it works?

Let's say this law existed in CT and Ms. Lanza had such insurance.

Does the insurance pay out for Sandy Hook?

I would think so. There might be clauses where the insurance tries to recoup the cost from her assets (estate in this case) due to her inadequate firearm storage, but I can't see why it shouldn't.

This is third party insurance, so *her* injuries would not have been covered.

 

[Nessie]

But the firearm-specific risk of injury or death is much lower than the general risk of injury or death. So why do we need a specific insurance for firearms, when all of this can be accomplished through general life/disability insurance? After all, it's stupid to only insure against a minor risk, and if you insure against the larger generic risk, that will include the minor risk as well. And we don't make life or disability insurance mandatory (beyond social security), so why do so for this specific minor risk? It's special pleading.

I have already said if house insurance covers guns then fine. But if you don't have house insurance you should have to get gun insurance. So long as you can show your gun is insured.

I am not bothered about claims of special pleading as such are only a fallacy if there is no good reason. I think there is a very good reason to insure guns considering the cost they have on society

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/29205944.html

Insurance in Scotland may operate differently than insurance in the US in this regard. Do you have any evidence that insurance in the US works this way?

No, I was talking about insurance in the UK.