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

[Nessie]

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?

Yes if it turns out she failed to properly secure her guns and Adam got them before he shot her. No if he had to shoot her first to then be able to overcome the security and then go on to the school.

 

[jimbob]

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.

And insurance companies thrive in both the US, England and Scotland, so such a system has been demonstrated to work, at least this side of the Atlantic.

 

[GlennB]

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

It goes even deeper, certainly in the UK. I had to photocopy a mortice (bolt-style) lock, identifiable in its original packaging, that was being fitted by demand of the insurance company, and supply the photocopy and a letter written by the locksmith who fitted it.

Had our house then been broken into with no sign of forced entry there's no way they would have paid out.

 

[GeeMack]

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

The acknowledgement that it is simply an unsupported subjective opinion is actually what defines the suggestion to require gun owners to have gun insurance as special pleading. Special pleading doesn't go away when supported by more special pleading. It only becomes more transparent and looks sillier.

 

[Nessie]

The acknowledgement that it is simply an unsupported subjective opinion is actually what defines the suggestion to require gun owners to have gun insurance as special pleading. Special pleading doesn't go away when supported by more special pleading. It only becomes more transparent and looks sillier.

You missed out the evidence I linked to which shows why there is a good reason to insure guns. By missing out the evidence you are misrepresenting what I said as "unsupported subjective opinion". Here is more evidence of the cost

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...-174-billion-show-burden-of-gun-violence.html

That cost is why guns should be insured, even if it is just the legally held ones as it helps reduce the burden on society, which is not special pleading.

So not only do you fail to evidence your claims, you miss out others evidence to dishonestly make your own claims.

 

[GeeMack]

You missed out the evidence I linked to which shows why there is a good reason to insure guns. By missing out the evidence you are misrepresenting what I said as "unsupported subjective opinion".

I didn't miss out on a thing, and I have not misrepresented anything, the persistent personal attacks notwithstanding.

Here is more evidence of the cost

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...-174-billion-show-burden-of-gun-violence.html

While it may tend to reinforce a subjective opinion for some, nothing there provides an objective reason to require insuring guns but not baseball bats, logging chains, butcher knives, shovels, tire irons, drain cleaner, short lengths of rope, or hands and feet. Nothing. Suggesting that requiring guns and/or gun owners to be insured in particular ways while neglecting to include all those other things people use to injure or kill people makes it, by definition, special pleading.

That cost is why guns should be insured, even if it is just the legally held ones as it helps reduce the burden on society, which is not special pleading.

So not only do you fail to evidence your claims, you miss out others evidence to dishonestly make your own claims.

My claim, as it is, is that the bulk of the arguments opposing gun ownership and/or favoring increased restrictions on law abiding gun owners neglect pretty much every other implement and method that people use to injure and kill other people. That ignorance, apparently willful, makes those arguments special pleading, which is a fallacy, which means they fail.

Now if some objective reasoning were to be provided... But from several months of these discussions, several thousand arguments opposing gun ownership or favoring increased restrictions on law abiding gun owners, comprised of subjective opinions, outrage, hand wringing, special pleading, indignation, admitted hyperbole and not-meant-literally statements with an acknowledged truth value of zero, that seems quite unlikely to happen.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

Oops. Turns out it wasn't stolen, I'm just forgetful, I misplaced it and just recently found it. So sorry.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

First off, many of the costs the article refers to (such as police time and resources) would not be compensated by insurance even if the shooter was insured. Second, I doubt that properly insured shooters would constitute a large fraction of the shootings that occur. I certainly don't expect gang members to buy gun insurance, do you? So even among the costs eligible for insurance coverage, most of it simply won't get covered.

In other words, it's not enough that the total costs of gun violence is high. The relevant cost is the cost that insurance could actually address, and that's only going to be some small fraction of that total. It's also still an unknown fraction, which means your position is still ultimately one of mere assertion of opinion. And no offense to you personally, but I don't care about your opinion of US gun control.

It goes even deeper, certainly in the UK. I had to photocopy a mortice (bolt-style) lock, identifiable in its original packaging, that was being fitted by demand of the insurance company, and supply the photocopy and a letter written by the locksmith who fitted it.

Had our house then been broken into with no sign of forced entry there's no way they would have paid out.

Wow. I've never had to do anything like that, for homeowner insurance or renter's insurance, and my policy has no similar restrictions on payouts. Sounds like burglary must be a significantly larger problem in the UK than it is in the US.

 

[uk_dave]

Oops. Turns out it wasn't stolen, I'm just forgetful, I misplaced it and just recently found it. So sorry.

Ooooops, you don't know where your weapons are at all times?

You have failed to comply with the 'safe gun' laws, and you're in contravention of the terms of your insurance. Your guns will now be confiscated, you will go on record as being ineligible to own guns and the insurance company will be investigating to see if there is a case of fraud they can sue you for.

Still want to be forgetful?

Let's say (oh noes, the car analogy again!!) you loan your car to someone and it's used to commit a crime. The police come around and ask who you gave the keys to, is 'not remembering' an adequate defence?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

You have failed to comply with the 'safe gun' laws, and you're in contravention of the terms of your insurance. Your guns will now be confiscated, you will go on record as being ineligible to own guns and the insurance company will be investigating to see if there is a case of fraud they can sue you for.

Isn't that what this is really all about?

Looking at the statistics, including those provided by your side of the debate, The NY law is not going to make much of a dent in violent crime ( which even some members of your side admit) and I can't see how it's going to provide much relief for the bulk of victims, either. The majority of violent crimes (including those using a firearm) are perpetrated by people who are not going to bother with insurance any more than they bothered with registration or legal purchase/possession, and ownership.

And unless I missed a post, no one has adequately addressed the fact that firearms ownership is an inherent right in the US. That makes a big difference as under our system of government (the only one which matters in this debate) before the government can interfere with an inherent right, it must show both a compelling reason for doing so, and prove that said interference is the only way to remedy the problem.
I understand that this isn't necessary in the UK as your rights are permissive rights, but we are not talking about the rights within the UK, we are debating rights within the US which holds the Constitution supreme, not Parliament (or Congress, if you will).

 

[GlennB]

Wow. I've never had to do anything like that, for homeowner insurance or renter's insurance, and my policy has no similar restrictions on payouts. Sounds like burglary must be a significantly larger problem in the UK than it is in the US.

About 50% higher, it seems.

But back to the point - would your home insurance pay up if you'd left a door or window open while out?

 

[uk_dave]

Isn't that what this is really all about?

What? Ziggurat proposed a scenario where a gun owner has lied about being in possession of a gun.
One assumes that in so doing, the gun owner has stopped paying for the insurance associated with that weapon.
But since he was always in possession of it, then the insurance company and law enforcement may have some things to say on the matter.
Maybe it would be serious enough to give the owner a criminal record.
Criminals aren't supposed to have guns, right?

My scenario was in response to a pro-gun poster assuming that a flippant attitude to gun ownership would be acceptable, i.e you should know where your guns are. If you don't, then you're not acting responsibly.

Looking at the statistics, including those provided by your side of the debate, The NY law is not going to make much of a dent in violent crime ( which even some members of your side admit) and I can't see how it's going to provide much relief for the bulk of victims, either. The majority of violent crimes (including those using a firearm) are perpetrated by people who are not going to bother with insurance any more than they bothered with registration or legal purchase/possession, and ownership.

Yeah, you keep on with this mantra about how criminals don't obey the law.

We know this, and no one as far as I have seen on this thread has ever said that they do.

The point which has been made time and time again is that the criminals are getting hold of guns illegally, or through loopholes such as gun shows and other private sales. Or, of course, they start off as legal gun owners with perfect background checks and they become criminals (or suffer mental illness issues which lead them to cause harm with guns)

The gun control measure, including insurance, are supposed to not only compensate victims of accidents and incidents with guns (don't forget, if you can prove that the person causing the harm didn't realise the damage they could do, some insurance policies will pay out!) but also make sure gun owners take their responsibilities seriously with regard to ownership.

At the moment, apparently, not knowing where your weapons are or just saying they are lost, is an acceptable part of gun ownership in the US.

That is ********** up.

And unless I missed a post, no one has adequately addressed the fact that firearms ownership is an inherent right in the US. That makes a big difference as under our system of government (the only one which matters in this debate) before the government can interfere with an inherent right, it must show both a compelling reason for doing so, and prove that said interference is the only way to remedy the problem.

We know, we know. It has been stated time and time again.

The thing is, you're failing to come up with any valid reason why gun ownership in the US shouldn't include adequate third party insurance and all you are left with is the 'infringement of the 2A' argument.

But, we both know that this argument does have flaws in that there are already many infringements:

If you have a criminal record - no weapons allowed
If you have a mental illness diagnosis - no weapons allowed

We have even discovered that while you have a right to bear arms, the state (or states) can impose a requirement upon you to take training and apply for a licence if you want to carry those arms concealed upon your person.

Interesting, isn't it? Don't recall reading that in the 2A

I understand that this isn't necessary in the UK as your rights are permissive rights, but we are not talking about the rights within the UK, we are debating rights within the US which holds the Constitution supreme, not Parliament (or Congress, if you will).

Yes and we know this too. We can only really learn from you guys as to the specifics of how things like 'rights' and insurance are done over there, but our own experiences with how things are done here or in other countries is what colours our perception of what could be done.

I'll say again, I don't believe the NY insurance proposal is the best option. I think it does have some things going for it, i.e it leaves the handling of the risk up to the free market, which is very much the American way.

But the issues with existing owners and the long term aspects of gun ownership does make it troublesome.

More importantly, I believe you need to address issues such as:

Enforcement of existing laws - Get tough on legal owners who flout existing laws and get tough on illegal possession of weapons

Know who has what gun - I know this is unpopular with the 'protect against tyranny' crowd, but seriously, everyone seems to agree that criminals and the severely mentally ill are to be kept away from weapons, and yet you don't even have a way of knowing if they have weapons in the first place. Additionally, it should be accepted that both of these conditions which make someone ineligible for gun ownership can occur during their adult lives, so it's not unreasonable to expect you to have to renew your eligibility on a regular basis.

Make safe storage and transportation a requirement - This is the one which is probably best served by insurance companies as they can adjust the premiums you would have to pay according to how responsible you are on this issue. But even without an insurance requirement, the legal penalties a gun owner could face if an accident/incident occurs and 'good practice' wasn't being followed could be enough of an incentive for people to take their responsibilities seriously.

Stuff like that, could do alot to stop criminals getting hold of guns in the first place and yet wouldn't cause more than a little inconvenience to legal gun owners.

Is it really acceptable to say "I don't know where my weapon is"?

 

[Ziggurat]

About 50% higher, it seems.

But back to the point - would your home insurance pay up if you'd left a door or window open while out?

Yes, it would.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ooooops, you don't know where your weapons are at all times?

You have failed to comply with the 'safe gun' laws, and you're in contravention of the terms of your insurance. Your guns will now be confiscated, you will go on record as being ineligible to own guns and the insurance company will be investigating to see if there is a case of fraud they can sue you for.

Still want to be forgetful?

Let's say (oh noes, the car analogy again!!) you loan your car to someone and it's used to commit a crime. The police come around and ask who you gave the keys to, is 'not remembering' an adequate defence?

I don't think the standards you propose are realistic, both in terms of what can be enforced and what would ever get passed as law.

As for your car analogy, there's nothing to defend. It is not a crime to lend your car to a friend, even if the friend commits a crime with it.

 

[uk_dave]

I don't think the standards you propose are realistic, both in terms of what can be enforced and what would ever get passed as law.

As for your car analogy, there's nothing to defend. It is not a crime to lend your car to a friend, even if the friend commits a crime with it.

I didn't say it was. Equally you don't have to pass a background check to see if you have a criminal record or mental health issues when buying a car (unless it was a Pontiac Aztek)

I wonder why.....

But it would surely be a crime to lend your car to someone you knew was drunk? Or didn't have a driver's licence? Or, god forbid, wasn't covered by your insurance? Wouldn't those things be negligence?

And if the police came and asked who you had loaned it to, could you get away with "I don't remember"? Obstructing justice, perhaps?

 

[Aber]

Oops. Turns out it wasn't stolen, I'm just forgetful, I misplaced it and just recently found it. So sorry.

Ignoring potential criminal fraud charges, what do you think your chances of renewing your gun insurance are, and even if you can get it what rates do you think you will have to pay?

It would be a remarkably stupid thing for a responsible gunn owner to do.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

What? Ziggurat proposed a scenario where a gun owner has lied about being in possession of a gun.
One assumes that in so doing, the gun owner has stopped paying for the insurance associated with that weapon.
But since he was always in possession of it, then the insurance company and law enforcement may have some things to say on the matter.
Maybe it would be serious enough to give the owner a criminal record.
Criminals aren't supposed to have guns, right?

Felons are prohibited, as are persons declared non compus mentis, and certain other violent offenders. Not having valid insurance does not fit into that category. You are also ignoring that most violent crimes are committed by persons who don't obey the law to begin with, and mere hand waving doesn't alter that. Insurance might provide a backstop providing relief from accidental injuries or deaths from lawful owners, but these incidents are so statistically insignificant that enacting a law which affects many but only will be applicable to a very tiny amount of the people forced to pay it is ridiculous, especially in view of the fact that most of the people who might need to make a claim against the insurance can already make a claim against the persons homeowners insurance.

Yeah, you keep on with this mantra about how criminals don't obey the law.

We know this, and no one as far as I have seen on this thread has ever said that they do.

No, instead you keep trying to make the case that the people who are the least likely to break the law are the ones who should bear the burden of paying for the people that by your own admission are the most likely to do so.
Worse, your purported reason is to provide relief for victims even though you are fully aware that little to no relief will actually be forthcoming.

The point which has been made time and time again is that the criminals are getting hold of guns illegally, or through loopholes such as gun shows and other private sales. Or, of course, they start off as legal gun owners with perfect background checks and they become criminals (or suffer mental illness issues which lead them to cause harm with guns)

Mandating insurance will do nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms or closing the loopholes by which criminals allegedly obtain firearms, which if you believe your own side, only accounts for a tiny percentage of firearms used by criminals anyway.
Universal background checks, which most law abiding gun owners favor, will do something about it. It will only affect that small percentage, but that is more than can be said about insurance.

The gun control measure, including insurance, are supposed to not only compensate victims of accidents and incidents with guns (don't forget, if you can prove that the person causing the harm didn't realise the damage they could do, some insurance policies will pay out!) but also make sure gun owners take their responsibilities seriously with regard to ownership.

And how is that going to help the vast bulk of people who become victims of firearms violence, when the vast majority of perpetrators are going to ignore the law anyway?

At the moment, apparently, not knowing where your weapons are or just saying they are lost, is an acceptable part of gun ownership in the US.

That is ********** up.

No, it is pure hyperbole on your part. You assume, based on one statement from one person on this board that not knowing where your weapons are is an acceptable part of gun ownership in the US.
You utter nonsense like that, and at the same time expect reasonable people to take you seriously.

We know, we know. It has been stated time and time again.

And yet, time and time again, you completely fail to provide an answer that satisfies the demand.

The thing is, you're failing to come up with any valid reason why gun ownership in the US shouldn't include adequate third party insurance and all you are left with is the 'infringement of the 2A' argument.

You're simply restating what you've already attempted to dismiss with your hand waving. The government needs to show a compelling reason for any interference and further to establish that the legislation is the only remedy that is available.

But, we both know that this argument does have flaws in that there are already many infringements:

If you have a criminal record - no weapons allowed
If you have a mental illness diagnosis - no weapons allowed

No flaws. The government was able to show both a compelling reason and to establish that the restrictions were the least intrusive measure available. I can link you to the decisions for the legislation if you're really interested.

We have even discovered that while you have a right to bear arms, the state (or states) can impose a requirement upon you to take training and apply for a licence if you want to carry those arms concealed upon your person.

Interesting, isn't it? Don't recall reading that in the 2A

The operative words here are "States" and "concealed". The States have the right to impose whatever laws they deem necessary (which would even include NY as long as it does not provide an undue constraint on the Constitutional guarantee or single out a group to be constrained).
There is a wealth of case law on this subject as well. This includes the recent Heller Decision which overturned laws in states which in effect barred an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

Yes and we know this too. We can only really learn from you guys as to the specifics of how things like 'rights' and insurance are done over there, but our own experiences with how things are done here or in other countries is what colours our perception of what could be done.

You are free to govern yourselves as you see fit, but this thread is not about debating the merits of the British system. It is about the US system and if this law has any merit within it.

I'll say again, I don't believe the NY insurance proposal is the best option. I think it does have some things going for it, i.e it leaves the handling of the risk up to the free market, which is very much the American way.

I don't think it is the best option, either. I don't think it was even intended to be anything more than another incremental move toward barring the citizens of NY from exercising a Constitutional right in exactly the same way that poll taxes and literacy tests were used to bar voters years ago in other states.

But the issues with existing owners and the long term aspects of gun ownership does make it troublesome.

More importantly, I believe you need to address issues such as:

Enforcement of existing laws - Get tough on legal owners who flout existing laws and get tough on illegal possession of weapons

Such as enforcing the laws already on the books? That's a very unpopular idea with most liberals.

Know who has what gun - I know this is unpopular with the 'protect against tyranny' crowd, but seriously, everyone seems to agree that criminals and the severely mentally ill are to be kept away from weapons, and yet you don't even have a way of knowing if they have weapons in the first place.

Yes, there's that pesky Fourth Amendment right that keeps getting in the way. Since you already agree that criminals aren't going to comply with gun registration, we'd need to do something about that, wouldn't we?

Additionally, it should be accepted that both of these conditions which make someone ineligible for gun ownership can occur during their adult lives, so it's not unreasonable to expect you to have to renew your eligibility on a regular basis.

And universal background checks on purchases wouldn't accomplish the same purpose?
As far as the "severely mental ill" getting their hands on firearms, you are aware that the number of psychotics who use firearms every year is also statistically insignificant, aren't you? Even including them is just another example of exaggeration to justify your position.

Make safe storage and transportation a requirement - This is the one which is probably best served by insurance companies as they can adjust the premiums you would have to pay according to how responsible you are on this issue. But even without an insurance requirement, the legal penalties a gun owner could face if an accident/incident occurs and 'good practice' wasn't being followed could be enough of an incentive for people to take their responsibilities seriously.

This assumes that storage and transportation of firearms plays some significant role in the number of incidents of firearms misuse. Do you have any statistical evidence to back that up?

Stuff like that, could do alot to stop criminals getting hold of guns in the first place and yet wouldn't cause more than a little inconvenience to legal gun owners.

Stuff like enforcing the laws already in effect, and targeting the gangs that cause the majority of gun violence in the US would do a lot more. And cause less inconvenience to law abiding gun owners.

Is it really acceptable to say "I don't know where my weapon is"?

Rhetorical question, or are you trying to make the case that most (or many) gun owners don't know where their gun is?
If so, evidence please.

 

[Nessie]

I didn't miss out on a thing, and I have not misrepresented anything, the persistent personal attacks notwithstanding.

Yes you did, you missed out the evidence as to why it is not special pleading to say guns should be insured, which is the cost to society of the damage they do.

While it may tend to reinforce a subjective opinion for some, nothing there provides an objective reason to require insuring guns but not baseball bats, logging chains, butcher knives, shovels, tire irons, drain cleaner, short lengths of rope, or hands and feet. Nothing. Suggesting that requiring guns and/or gun owners to be insured in particular ways while neglecting to include all those other things people use to injure or kill people makes it, by definition, special pleading.

Please evidence the cost of damage of guns compared to other items used to kill.

My claim, as it is, is that the bulk of the arguments opposing gun ownership and/or favoring increased restrictions on law abiding gun owners neglect pretty much every other implement and method that people use to injure and kill other people. That ignorance, apparently willful, makes those arguments special pleading, which is a fallacy, which means they fail.

Now if some objective reasoning were to be provided... But from several months of these discussions, several thousand arguments opposing gun ownership or favoring increased restrictions on law abiding gun owners, comprised of subjective opinions, outrage, hand wringing, special pleading, indignation, admitted hyperbole and not-meant-literally statements with an acknowledged truth value of zero, that seems quite unlikely to happen.

Please evidence your claim.

 

[Nessie]

First off, many of the costs the article refers to (such as police time and resources) would not be compensated by insurance even if the shooter was insured. Second, I doubt that properly insured shooters would constitute a large fraction of the shootings that occur. I certainly don't expect gang members to buy gun insurance, do you? So even among the costs eligible for insurance coverage, most of it simply won't get covered.

In other words, it's not enough that the total costs of gun violence is high. The relevant cost is the cost that insurance could actually address, and that's only going to be some small fraction of that total. It's also still an unknown fraction, which means your position is still ultimately one of mere assertion of opinion. And no offense to you personally, but I don't care about your opinion of US gun control.



.........

Would you argue not to pay for vehicle insurance because criminals don't?

No offence, but I don't care about your opinion either.

 

[AlBell]

Ignoring potential criminal fraud charges,

A quick look at the legality issues insurance would entail. Criminal? Misdemeaner? Possible jail time?

Value and Compensation is the next big issue which will at least enrich trial lawyers.