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

[uk_dave]

You sure about that? According to this page US kayaking deaths average about 140/yr, and there were 600,000 or so "kayak entusiasts". That's a rate significantly higher than the US gun homicide rate.

.

Let me know when the US government mandates background checks for the purchase of a Kayak.

 

[BenBurch]

Because a Kayak is JUST as dangerous a weapon as a gun!

That's why so many people carry a concealed kayak, after all.

 

[uk_dave]

That's why so many people carry a concealed kayak, after all.

You need a licence for that?

 

[jimbob]

Because a Kayak is JUST as dangerous a weapon as a gun!

That's why so many people carry a concealed kayak, after all.

Like this?

 

[Ziggurat]

But we're talking about a mandatory insurance requirement to cover third party costs.

This isn't intended to be optional. This isn't something that the insured can decide "Hmmm I'm not a risk to anyone else so I don't need to be covered"

Nessie claimed that insurance would shift the cost onto those responsible for incurring it. But mandatory or not, this is exactly what insurance is designed to avoid. The mandatory nature of the proposed insurance has nothing to do with that.

In just the same way that upstream it was pointed out that homeowners insurance is mandatory if you have a mortgage - yes it covers you (the insured) but the basis for it is to cover the party who is potentially harmed by events beyond their control i.e the mortgage company.

Homeowner insurance is not required by the government. It's only required by the lender, as a condition of the loan. Your decision to voluntarily enter into a private relationship with a lender is the basis for that lender demanding insurance. You have no right to someone else's money, so there's no infringement of your rights for them to place conditions upon that loan. There is no equivalent relationship involved with guns, and we DO have a right to own guns.

What I believe Nessie meant was that third party insurance means the insured party can meet their personal responsibility. It means the gun owner will be covered so that if a terrible accident occurs, or there is negligence on their part or some undiagnosed mental disorder pushes them over the brink, the the harm that they are responsible for (personal responsibility being the order of the day, rather than pushing the cost on to the tax payer) is able to be met, whether they feel the insurance is necessary or not.

The claim I objected to was that insurance would force those responsible for damages to pay for those damages. But now you're saying that it simply ensures that the damages will be paid for, period. Those are completely different positions. You don't have to take Nessie's position, but you can't simply substitute yours for his.

 

[uk_dave]

The claim I objected to was that insurance would force those responsible for damages to pay for those damages. But now you're saying that it simply ensures that the damages will be paid for, period. Those are completely different positions. You don't have to take Nessie's position, but you can't simply substitute yours for his.

I can only assume that the old saying about "two nations separated by a common language" are true.

Let's break it down:

Insurance would force those responsible for damages to pay for those damages

Okay, maybe 'force' is not the best word. How about 'enable'?

..... it ensures that the damages are paid for...

Yep, insurance enables the insured to be able to meet the costs of a claim

Completely different positions?
Seriously?

ETA: I would also point out that while insurance can 'enable' the insured to pay a claim against him/her, the payment of that claim is not optional, i.e the insured doesn't get the money and then decide to jet off to the Bahamas for a month. The insurance money is ONLY there to pay the third party claim.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

I can only assume that the old saying about "two nations separated by a common language" are true.

Let's break it down:

Insurance would force those responsible for damages to pay for those damages

Okay, maybe 'force' is not the best word. How about 'enable'?

..... it ensures that the damages are paid for...

Yep, insurance enables the insured to be able to meet the costs of a claim

Completely different positions?
Seriously?

How so?
The majority of gun violence occurs in low income urban environments and the perpetrators are career criminals, gang members or other people living in the low income urban environment who also have previous convictions and could not reasonably be expected to follow the law. They are responsible, but are not going to pay.
This leaves only law abiding homeowners who already have insurance, and cause very little of the gun violence, and CCP holders who cause such an insignificant amount of the violence as to be statistically irrelevant.
So how does mandated firearms insurance force the vast majority of offenders to pay for their damage, or enable the vast majority of victims to make a claim?

 

[Ziggurat]

I can only assume that the old saying about "two nations separated by a common language" are true.

Let's break it down:

Insurance would force those responsible for damages to pay for those damages

Okay, maybe 'force' is not the best word. How about 'enable'?

If you're requiring the insurance, then "force" is a perfectly appropriate word. But that's not the problem here. The problem is that insurance makes the people who aren't responsible for damages actually pay for most of those damages. That's the whole point of insurance. I would willingly buy car insurance even if it wasn't required because I can't see the future, and I'm willing to pay for other people's accidents in order to protect myself against the risk of causing an accident myself. But I'm not willing to pay for other people's crimes in order to protect against the risk that I will commit a crime, because I won't. And even if I was willing to, that's still what insurance amounts to: shifting the cost away from those who are actually responsible for the damage.

..... it ensures that the damages are paid for...

Yep, insurance enables the insured to be able to meet the costs of a claim

Completely different positions?
Seriously?

Yes, completely different. Not opposite positions, not even contradictory positions, but most certainly different positions. One position deals with who has to pay (and gets it wrong), one deals with who gets paid.

 

[theprestige]

I can only assume that the old saying about "two nations separated by a common language" are true.

Let's break it down:

Insurance would force those responsible for damages to pay for those damages

Okay, maybe 'force' is not the best word. How about 'enable'?

..... it ensures that the damages are paid for...

Yep, insurance enables the insured to be able to meet the costs of a claim.

No it doesn't.

What insurance does is enable the insurer to meet the costs of the claim. The insured just has to meet the costs of the monthly premium. Once I've paid my monthy fee to the insurance company, do you think I'm going to be more or less careful with my gun? I mean, with the insurance scheme Nessie is proposing, I can rest assured that no matter how negligent I am--no matter how criminal I am!--the costs of my bad behavior will be met by a third party. Because I paid the fee.

What you really want is for firearms owner to pay into a Reparations Fund. Once their fund reaches the government-mandated amount, they can be permitted to own a firearm. If, through negligence or willful misuse, their firearm harms someone else, the government can seize their fund and use it to meet the costs of their bad behavior (presumably their guns would then be confiscated, until such time as they replenished their fund). If they never behaved badly, the money in the fund could be returned to them when they give up ownership of their firearm.

And some people actually do this kind of thing: setting aside money for health care, rather than paying insurance premiums for it. Those people are, of course rich people. The rest of us use insurance instead. Because it's cheaper. And it's cheaper because the insured don't actually meet their own costs: The insurer does. That's the distinguishing feature of insurance over other cost-paying schemes.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

I understand that there's a software program that can custom make screws designed to screw gun owners with your own custom made screwdriver and screw for 90 bucks. Apparently its all made of sand. Who knew we gun control types could finally win this debate merely by screwing gun owners? When I have time I will google and post the article.

 

[Belz...]

You cannot exercise your 2A right if you are a danger to yourself and others? Yes.

Because you can't afford it? No.

I'd rather be able to afford health insurance.

 

[Belz...]

That's why we have to have a poll tax, to keep irresponsible (poor) people from voting.

I wish. (sort of kidding)

 

[Belz...]

Is a $10 poll tax prohibitively high?

The question doesn't matter. Any poll tax is unconstitutional.

But is taxing firearms unconstitutional ?

This stupid amendment is causing a lot of headaches.

 

[triforcharity]

It's not a tax on owning a firearm, it's on the purchase of it. Slightly different.

 

[Ziggurat]

But is taxing firearms unconstitutional ?

Taxing the ownership of firearms would be. And I suspect a gun-specific sales tax might also have problems. But as part of a generic sales tax on almost any transfer of goods, I don't see a problem.

This stupid amendment is causing a lot of headaches.

For whom? For people who want to ban guns, certainly. For people who want to protect the right to own guns, I'd say not.

 

[uk_dave]

..... I'm willing to pay for other people's accidents in order to protect myself against the risk of causing an accident myself. But I'm not willing to pay for other people's crimes in order to protect against the risk that I will commit a crime, because I won't. And even if I was willing to, that's still what insurance amounts to: shifting the cost away from those who are actually responsible for the damage.

Semantics.
Speeding is a crime, and if you cause injury or harm through speeding, you are likely to be prosecuted. As will every other speeding driver out there, for whom you pay into the insurance pot to cover for their mistakes.

If someone is fooling around with a loaded gun and it 'accidentally' goes off and injures another person, is that really an accident? Or is it negligence?

If someone is climbing over a gate while carrying a loaded gun and gets snagged and the gun goes off injuring another person, is that an accident?

If you're driving too fast in the rain, or too close to the car in front or trying to find that track you want to listen to on your mp3 and someone pulls out in front of you or the car in front stops suddenly, is that an accident or are you to blame?

So long as your insurance has to pay out to the third party, then you have been found to be responsible for causing the harm they have suffered. In some cases, you might even face criminal prosecution.

Yes, completely different. Not opposite positions, not even contradictory positions, but most certainly different positions. One position deals with who has to pay (and gets it wrong), one deals with who gets paid.

No, they both deal with who gets compensated by the legal gun owner

No it doesn't.

What insurance does is enable the insurer to meet the costs of the claim. The insured just has to meet the costs of the monthly premium. Once I've paid my monthy fee to the insurance company, do you think I'm going to be more or less careful with my gun? I mean, with the insurance scheme Nessie is proposing, I can rest assured that no matter how negligent I am--no matter how criminal I am!--the costs of my bad behavior will be met by a third party. Because I paid the fee.

I believe someone intimated upstream that the best deterrent against you acting criminally with a gun is the criminal justice system, not a lack of insurance.

What you really want is for firearms owner to pay into a Reparations Fund. Once their fund reaches the government-mandated amount, they can be permitted to own a firearm. If, through negligence or willful misuse, their firearm harms someone else, the government can seize their fund and use it to meet the costs of their bad behavior (presumably their guns would then be confiscated, until such time as they replenished their fund). If they never behaved badly, the money in the fund could be returned to them when they give up ownership of their firearm.

Insurance already does that function. You don't pay premiums on the basis that you can't make a claim (or own a car) until you stacked up enough to cover those costs, you're insured as soon as you make that first payment.

And some people actually do this kind of thing: setting aside money for health care, rather than paying insurance premiums for it. Those people are, of course rich people. The rest of us use insurance instead. Because it's cheaper. And it's cheaper because the insured don't actually meet their own costs: The insurer does. That's the distinguishing feature of insurance over other cost-paying schemes.

Yeah, people certainly claim to do this for health care, but call me skeptical.

If you was very rich, wouldn't you choose to just have the all bells and whistles, gold standard, platinum edged health care plan which gives you the absolute best? You can certainly afford the premiums and it avoids any hesitation on the health care providers part.

Would you really put say $500,000 in a ring fenced account and maintain it at that level, just in case?

I wouldn't

 

[Ziggurat]

Semantics.
Speeding is a crime, and if you cause injury or harm through speeding, you are likely to be prosecuted. As will every other speeding driver out there, for whom you pay into the insurance pot to cover for their mistakes.

If someone is fooling around with a loaded gun and it 'accidentally' goes off and injures another person, is that really an accident? Or is it negligence?

If someone is climbing over a gate while carrying a loaded gun and gets snagged and the gun goes off injuring another person, is that an accident?

If you're driving too fast in the rain, or too close to the car in front or trying to find that track you want to listen to on your mp3 and someone pulls out in front of you or the car in front stops suddenly, is that an accident or are you to blame?

It's not semantics at all. The damage that guns do is dominated by deliberate criminal acts. This isn't a difference between an accident and negligence. We're talking about the difference between accidents and deliberate crimes. And this is NOT the same as driving a car, where most accidents are not deliberate crimes.

And by the way, speeding is not a crime, but only an infraction (and yes, the difference matters). Even if you are speeding when you cause an accident, that does not make it a crime either. Very few car accidents are crimes.

So long as your insurance has to pay out to the third party, then you have been found to be responsible for causing the harm they have suffered.

Now you are playing semantics. Let's recall what it was that Nessie said that I objected to:

Insurance means those who have legal guns and kill or injure pay for the costs to society.​

It doesn't matter if you've been "found" to be responsible. If your insurance provider is paying, then you are not. So Nessie's claim is wrong, and your defense of his claim now no longer has any connection to that claim.

 

[uk_dave]

And by the way, speeding is not a crime, but only an infraction (and yes, the difference matters). Even if you are speeding when you cause an accident, that does not make it a crime either. Very few car accidents are crimes.

Illinois begs to differ...

A person commits involuntary manslaughter when he or she recklessly performs acts, whether lawful or unlawful, which are likely to cause death or great bodily harm, and which do cause the death of an individual. A person commits reckless homicide if he or she unintentionally kills an individual while driving a motor vehicle or operating a snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or watercraft.
......

Although involuntary manslaughter and reckless homicide offenses are classified as Class 3 felonies, such an unintentional killing will be elevated to a Class 2 felony in the presence of specified aggravating factors. These include the commission of a reckless homicide at a public thoroughfare where schoolchildren pass and a crossing guard is on duty; where the victim in question was a peace officer engaged in the course of his or her official duties; or where the victim of an involuntary manslaughter was a family or household member.

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/illinois-law/illinois-involuntary-manslaughter-laws.html

It doesn't matter if you've been "found" to be responsible. If your insurance provider is paying, then you are not. So Nessie's claim is wrong, and your defense of his claim now no longer has any connection to that claim.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

If your insurance provider is paying, then you are the person responsible for the 'accident'. If not, they wouldn't be paying.

 

[Ziggurat]

Illinois begs to differ...

No it doesn't. Speeding is not synonymous with reckless driving. It can be an element of reckless driving, but it is not the same thing. Your first clue should have been the fact that your source doesn't actually mention speeding. So... fail.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

If your insurance provider is paying, then you are the person responsible for the 'accident'. If not, they wouldn't be paying.

You don't get it. Nessie wasn't arguing about who was responsible (and his point wasn't confined to accidents). He was arguing about who pays. And if your insurance pays, you don't. Why can you not understand such a simple concept?

 

[Belz...]

Taxing the ownership of firearms would be.

Well I know you think so but I was wondering if you could explain why.

For whom? For people who want to ban guns, certainly. For people who want to protect the right to own guns, I'd say not.

For everybody. The amendment is archaic and vague. At the very least it should be rewritten. I don't know why so many Americans are concerned about guns. Most other western countries don't have such a constitutional provision and don't seem to mind. They also don't seem to miss some important freedom.