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

[jimbob]

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.

The newest data I could find suggested that about 40% of offenders obtained their guns from a friend or family member - these would be addressed by liability issues. About 12% were bought from a retail outlet or pawnshop - I guess some would be first time offenders, so there would be no reason to stop them. About 10% stole their guns.

That leaves the about 30% who obtained it from a drug dealer or black market - including a fence.

In the post below I did recognise the problems that the second amendment causes:

I keep seeing this, and it's absolutely disgusting that I, a lawful, responsible, gun owner, should have to pay for what the IRRESPONSIBLE and criminals do.


This just makes no damn sense at all. None.


Just as soon as you start paying for someone else's DUIs and damage to property from DUI drivers, we'll talk.....

Name another right, as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, that requires a person to pay a fee. I think you'll find you need to jump through many hoops, and possibly stretch things, to get an answer.

This is the nub of the issue.

Because of an accident of history, guns in the US have an anomalously privileged situation compared to other OECD countries.

For the UK there is no issue with requiring insurance for something with such a potential for causing harm.

Many guns are more effective weapons than any blade-based weapon - especially in the hands of someone with minimal training. If you are talking about spree killing, the equation is even more in favour of the gun.

In the US, the number of gun deaths is similar to that caused by automobiles, and automobiles do require insurance, as well as being far more important to most people's lifestyles than guns.

However cars are not protected by the second any amendment to the US constitution. To me as an outsider, I can see that this causes legal complications, but it doesn't add any logical reasons, as the constitution is simply a document that has been subject to modification.

 

[theprestige]

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

I would argue against using the amount of illegal firearms ownership and use as a justification for requiring legal firearms owners to buy insurance.

You need to be clear about which problem you're trying to solve. If you're trying to insure the victims of illegal firearms owners, then obviously imposing insurance on legal firearms owners is entirely irrelevant, and you should probably drop the idea altogether.

If you're trying to insure the victims of legal firearms owners, then you'll probably be expected to answer questions about whether the magnitude of the problem justifies government intrusion, and questions about whether your proposed solution is actually the best solution (or even a good solution).

Regardless of which problem you're trying to solve, comparisons and contrasts with other scenarios are going to be useful tools for judging the merits of your proposed solution.

 

[jimbob]

I would argue against using the amount of illegal firearms ownership and use as a justification for requiring legal firearms owners to buy insurance.

You need to be clear about which problem you're trying to solve. If you're trying to insure the victims of illegal firearms owners, then obviously imposing insurance on legal firearms owners is entirely irrelevant, and you should probably drop the idea altogether.

If you're trying to insure the victims of legal firearms owners, then you'll probably be expected to answer questions about whether the magnitude of the problem justifies government intrusion, and questions about whether your proposed solution is actually the best solution (or even a good solution).

Regardless of which problem you're trying to solve, comparisons and contrasts with other scenarios are going to be useful tools for judging the merits of your proposed solution.

Except that:

The newest data I could find suggested that about 40% of offenders obtained their guns from a friend or family member - these would be addressed by liability issues. About 12% were bought from a retail outlet or pawnshop - I guess some would be first time offenders, so there would be no reason to stop them. About 10% stole their guns.

That leaves the about 30% who obtained it from a drug dealer or black market - including a fence.

Significant numbers of illegal firearms are three years old or less

 

[Nessie]

I would argue against using the amount of illegal firearms ownership and use as a justification for requiring legal firearms owners to buy insurance.

You need to be clear about which problem you're trying to solve. If you're trying to insure the victims of illegal firearms owners, then obviously imposing insurance on legal firearms owners is entirely irrelevant, and you should probably drop the idea altogether.

If you're trying to insure the victims of legal firearms owners, then you'll probably be expected to answer questions about whether the magnitude of the problem justifies government intrusion, and questions about whether your proposed solution is actually the best solution (or even a good solution).

Regardless of which problem you're trying to solve, comparisons and contrasts with other scenarios are going to be useful tools for judging the merits of your proposed solution.

All true. I cannot find much on how many legally held guns are used in homicides/assaults, except for mass shootings where in 49 out of 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 the weapon was legally obtained and "Of the 143 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

So insurance companies would be paying out in the majority of mass shootings.

 

[theprestige]

All true. I cannot find much on how many legally held guns are used in homicides/assaults, except for mass shootings where in 49 out of 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 the weapon was legally obtained and "Of the 143 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

So insurance companies would be paying out in the majority of mass shootings.

Makes sense to me.

So. For avoidance of doubt, let's be clear: You are advocating firearms insurance specifically to address the problem of insuring victims of legal gun owners.

Is that an accurate description of your position?

 

[Ziggurat]

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

No. First, driving a vehicle on public roads isn't a right, but owning a gun is. I know you don't care that it's a right, but it is, and so it should be treated as one.

Second, the vehicle insurance requirement is far more successful in achieving its intended goal than gun insurance would be. Not only is enforcement of the requirement much easier to do, but unlike guns, the damage caused by otherwise law-abiding drivers isn't some small fraction of the damage done. I am not at any significant risk of being injured by a law-abiding gun owner. I am at significant risk of getting in an accident with a law-abiding driver.

In fact, I am at significant risk of causing an accident myself, even though I am law abiding. But gun ownership does not present similar risk levels for law-abiding owners.

So why should I be forced to pay for insurance that I'm almost certainly never going to need to make a claim on, when there isn't even a reasonable expectation of reciprocity if I am shot, because it's almost certainly going to be from an uninsured criminal?

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

My opinion on the topic matters, because I can vote here. Your opinion on the topic doesn't, because you can't. If we were discussing gun laws in the UK, then the situation would be reverse. If you don't care about my opinion, then either you don't believe that laws should be determined through a democratic process, or you don't care about the topic at all, in which case you shouldn't even bother posting.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

People do stupid things all the bloody time. Especially when provided with an incentive to do so.

And the smart, responsible people with guns aren't the problem.

 

[Giz]

So insurance companies would be paying out in the majority of mass shootings.

Which are less than 1% of all homicides.

This is like trying to fight knife crime in Glasgow by banning claymores.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

All true. I cannot find much on how many legally held guns are used in homicides/assaults, except for mass shootings where in 49 out of 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 the weapon was legally obtained and "Of the 143 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

So insurance companies would be paying out in the majority of mass shootings.

Only if you believe Mother Jones. Their definition of legally obtaining a firearm includes murder, theft of government property, felony perjury, purchasing a fully automatic weapon in violation of Federal law, and counts "unknown method" as a legal purchase.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

Not realy sure how you came to that statistic, as unless you've developed psychic abilities, there's no reasonable way of knowing that.

And I can assure you, no insurance company is going to agree to that, not to mention that it still violates the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

I'm sure someone's already asked, but how about a US source, since that's what the topic is.

BTW, I just called my insurance agent to change and add some different coverages, and asked her if I left my door unlocked, would it cover theft from my house or vehicle, and she said yes. I think I'll go with you're wrong as a whole.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

I've asked this before, but I don't recall getting an answer.

Do you have evidence for this claim? I saw heresy evidence, but nothing official. Have you seen differently?

 

[triforcharity]

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.

Do you ever pass up a chance to bash the US?

Also, he wasn't talking about it actually work, but if it was LEGAL in the US. Insurance in the US can be really weird sometimes.

 

[triforcharity]

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?

And this right here is why insurance should not, and can not be a requirement of owning or possessing a firearm in the US. This is a HUGE violation of the 2nd Amendment. This is why foreigners, especially UK'ers, should just stick to facts,.

WRT the hilited: Doesn't matter, the authorities would need to place me at the scene before they could charge me with a crime. This is called probable cause, and without it, a charge cannot be filed against the car owner.

I let a friend of a friend borrow my truck a few weeks back. If he'd have used it in a crime, I'd be irritated, but would not be charged with any crime.

 

[triforcharity]

But it would surely be a crime to lend your car to someone you knew was drunk?

Nope. That person would be fully responsible, and the only way I could be liable, would be civilly.

Or didn't have a driver's licence?

Nope. Your insurance may refuse to cover any damage they may cause, but criminal charges? Nope, not in Florida (AFAIK)

Or, god forbid, wasn't covered by your insurance?

Most insurance companies cover any legally licensed driver who drives a vehicle temporarily.

Wouldn't those things be negligence?

Nope, not under Florida criminal law. Civil law may be different.

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?

Nope, Don't know the guy's name. It was a new neighbor. Perfectly legal.

 

[jimbob]

Not realy sure how you came to that statistic, as unless you've developed psychic abilities, there's no reasonable way of knowing that.

And I can assure you, no insurance company is going to agree to that, not to mention that it still violates the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

Slightly more than half of all privately owned firearms were stored unlocked; 16 percent of firearms were stored unlocked and loaded.

Those who had been arrested for nontraffic offenses were more
likely to own firearms (37 percent compared to 25 percent in the general population).

 

[jimbob]

Do you ever pass up a chance to bash the US?

Also, he wasn't talking about it actually work, but if it was LEGAL in the US. Insurance in the US can be really weird sometimes.

I wasn't trying to bash the US - there is a lot that I admire compared to the UK - (the fact it is a republic for a start

I was just pointing out that insurance companies on either side of the Atlantic are not altruistic organisations, and they do manage to implement systems similar to those that I have described in the UK and make a profit.

I would have thought that this aspect of insurance is probably going to be covered by contract law rather than more fundamental aspects of the legal systems in the US or the UK. In support of this, there is the fact that the Scottish insurance policies as described by Nessie are similar to my experience of the English insurance policies, when it could be argued that the English and US legal systems have more in common with each other than Scotland - having the same origins. For example, in Scotland, "Not proven" verdicts are available in trials as well as "guilty" and "not guilty", which is not the case in England, nor I understand in the US. I am not a lawyer though.

Upthread, I have seen someone post that insurers sometimes cover the third-party costs incurred by a drunk-driving accident, and then attempt to recoup these costs from the driver -who they insured.

Such an approach seems perfectly reasonable to me - the innocent third parties get their costs from the insurance company, which can afford it. The insurers recoup as much of the cost as possible from the guilty party, and the drunk driver eventually has to bear as much of the cost as they are able.

 

[jimbob]

And this right here is why insurance should not, and can not be a requirement of owning or possessing a firearm in the US. This is a HUGE violation of the 2nd Amendment. This is why foreigners, especially UK'ers, should just stick to facts,.

WRT the hilited: Doesn't matter, the authorities would need to place me at the scene before they could charge me with a crime. This is called probable cause, and without it, a charge cannot be filed against the car owner.

I let a friend of a friend borrow my truck a few weeks back. If he'd have used it in a crime, I'd be irritated, but would not be charged with any crime.

If you had a criminal friend and lent them a gun which they then used in a robbery would that still be the same? I'd have thought in such a situation you'd bear some responsibility and attempting to make you legally responsible would be a reasonable move by legislators.

 

[Nessie]

Makes sense to me.

So. For avoidance of doubt, let's be clear: You are advocating firearms insurance specifically to address the problem of insuring victims of legal gun owners.

Is that an accurate description of your position?

Yes.

 

[Nessie]

No. First, driving a vehicle on public roads isn't a right, but owning a gun is. I know you don't care that it's a right, but it is, and so it should be treated as one.

You keep ignoring the point I make about rights and permissions. If either poses a deadly threat then it is the deadly threat part that needs to be regulated.

Second, the vehicle insurance requirement is far more successful in achieving its intended goal than gun insurance would be. Not only is enforcement of the requirement much easier to do, but unlike guns, the damage caused by otherwise law-abiding drivers isn't some small fraction of the damage done. I am not at any significant risk of being injured by a law-abiding gun owner. I am at significant risk of getting in an accident with a law-abiding driver.

In fact, I am at significant risk of causing an accident myself, even though I am law abiding. But gun ownership does not present similar risk levels for law-abiding owners.

So why should I be forced to pay for insurance that I'm almost certainly never going to need to make a claim on, when there isn't even a reasonable expectation of reciprocity if I am shot, because it's almost certainly going to be from an uninsured criminal?

Loads of things are insured, from dancers legs to people's dogs to extremely rare and valuable paintings. Your claims that guns wouldn't work is non sense. Indeed if claims will be rare, it will be cheap, so if you are so worried you may be shot by criminals, how about adding insurance for that to your policy as an option?

My opinion on the topic matters, because I can vote here. Your opinion on the topic doesn't, because you can't. If we were discussing gun laws in the UK, then the situation would be reverse. If you don't care about my opinion, then either you don't believe that laws should be determined through a democratic process, or you don't care about the topic at all, in which case you shouldn't even bother posting.

I am going to continue posting whether you like it or not.