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

[uk_dave]

Dodging the question by responding with another question isn't helping your case.


Irrelevant to the topic. The topic is firearms insurance, not enforcement procedures. Nice attempt at diverting the focus away from your claim about insurance, though.

So it's all or nothing?

If gun insurance doesn't solve every problem to do with lax gun control in the US then gun insurance must be discarded completely?

Is that the depth of your argument? Fantastic debating skill.

And yet again, not relevant to to your position on insurance and how it may be used to compensate victims.
You seem so insistent on coming back to this subject (and away from the position on compensation that prompted my original question) that it would make any reasonable person wonder if your position on insurance was sincere or just another pretext for furthering the anti-gun agenda.

Judging from this statement, I was dead on target in the above response. Thanks for finally admitting it.
But rather than gloat about outing your true intent, I'll continue with the subject of the debate.
In the case I described, there is no one against whom the survivors could be reasonably expected to file a claim against. The killer was a career criminal, already on probation for another violent felony, a gang member, and an individual no reasonable person could expect to have purchased the type of firearms insurance in question.

wtf

No, you seem to have a supreme inability to ascertain anyone's true intent. It's troubling given the job you say you used to have.

Being in favour of stricter gun control aimed at stopping criminals getting hold of guns is not being 'anti gun' or wanting to ban all guns.

And the gun insurance proposal is not intended to make criminals take out insurance! Please stop with this tired meme.

It is supposed to compensate the victims of irresponsible gun ownership and make legal gun owners ante up and act responsibly, and stop legally held guns from getting into the hands of criminals in the first place. If they do everything that can be reasonably expected of them and yet their gun gets stolen then they have nothing to worry about.

If they leave their gun laying around or just 'lose' it or loan it to someone they don't have certainty isn't going to be an idiot with it, or sell it to a stranger who has mental illness or a criminal record, then yes the gun owner should take responsibility and the gun insurance is ONE measure which could help achieve that as well as make reparations to anyone injured with that gun guaranteed rather than a lottery as to whether the gun owner has any assets worth suing for or whether society as a whole has to pick up the tab for the irresponsible gun owner's incompetence.

It's not that anyone is saying that there is no reason to provide compensation to the victims, we're saying that no compensation could reasonably be expected to exist in the first place in the overwhelming majority of incidents.

But that is no reason to rule out compensation for the minority of incidents. Each one of those incidents is still a life cut short or radically changed by the actions of others.
If it's so rare, the insurance will be affordable, moreso if you can convince the insurer that you are at a low risk of making a claim.

Nobody. The gun owner herself was a victim.
Are you making the case that even victims be liable for crimes now?

And if she had had mandatory third party gun insurance are we certain her estate wouldn't have been liable for any compensation claims from those victim families?

And if keeping gun insurance premiums down to a reasonable amount meant she had a secure storage procedure for those guns, perhaps the mentally ill son would never have had access to them in the first place.

No single proposal is going to solve these problems and I'm fairly sure you have the mental capacity to understand that and consider a whole raft of proposals which may or may not include gun insurance, but please don't avoid the issue by just finding scenarios where the insurance would have no impact and ignoring the possibility that the insurance does have the potential to do some good in other scenarios.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Tough

As long as we're on the subject, let's do a quick recap here.

1. The 2nd Amendment is an inherent right under OUR laws, which means the state must provide both a compelling reason and it must be the least intrusive of any available means to remedy said compelling reason.
Have you, or any other anti-gun proponent given a reason for the NY law that fits the required standard of merit?
No. You haven't even come close, let alone to the exclusion of any other available means. Most of the time (and by that I mean I can't remember a single instance in over 36 pages worth of debate) you've done little but run away from the very question, never mind attempting to answer it.

2. Does it serve any purpose toward lowering the crime rate or the incidence of firearms death in the US, which is your main complaint against the 2nd Amendment?
No. You even admit this is the case.

3. Does it provide any substantive measure of protection for the victims of violent crime?
No, since the vast majority of violent crimes involving firearms are committed by persons who could not reasonably be expected to purchase the insurance to begin with. Gang members, and career criminals are not noted for compliance with the insurance statutes in this country.

4. Is the law even based on a reasonable theory in and of itself?
Apparently not. There was certainly less than an enthusiastic response to proposing a similar law regarding knives in the UK, even though it is the weapon of choice for violent criminals in that crime ridden country. There is definitely no insurance statute here in the US which is predicated on the insured committing a crime.

Just what does the passage of such a law accomplish?
Nothing, except to provide one more obstacle to lawful ownership, something the anti-gun faction continually claims is not their objective, going so far as to label such claims as "paranoid fantasies" or similar terms.

So, insofar as making a logical, well reasoned, well grounded (in US law) case for the NY insurance scheme, I'd have to say that judging by the epic fail we've seen so far, the chances of anyone favoring the law coming out of the debate looking like anything but a loser from a second rate country awash in its own violent problems is very,... what was that word you used?
Oh yes:
TOUGH!

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

So it's all or nothing?

From the viewpoint of making a case for the NY law or even getting a direct answer to my question, all has yet to make am appearance. So far its nothing.

If gun insurance doesn't solve every problem to do with lax gun control in the US then gun insurance must be discarded completely?

I can't see where it will solve any problem with gun control, at least from the perspective of US law. As to its relative laxity, that is your entirely subjective opinion.

Is that the depth of your argument? Fantastic debating skill.

When all else fails, try an ad hominem diversion. Naughty, naughty. You may report yourself to the mods.

No, you seem to have a supreme inability to ascertain anyone's true intent. It's troubling given the job you say you used to have.

I haven't attempted to ascertain your true intent, I merely pondered whether or not that intent was founded on a logical, well reasoned approval of the NY statute or some ulterior motive, and the query was based on the fact that you consistently went off topic (three times in one post) to comment specifically on your perceived inadequacy of the current firearms laws here in the US.

Being in favour of stricter gun control aimed at stopping criminals getting hold of guns is not being 'anti gun' or wanting to ban all guns.

That might be true if you had ever proposed any reasonable measure that would accomplish this within the scope of our own form of government. But not only haven't you, you haven't even shown that you would be receptive to anything that does not directly impact the law abiding gun owners.

And the gun insurance proposal is not intended to make criminals take out insurance! Please stop with this tired meme.

I think we're all (at least the pro-2nd Amendment faction) aware of that. It is you who keep referring to it as some sort of indirect method of keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals.

It is supposed to compensate the victims of irresponsible gun ownership and make legal gun owners ante up and act responsibly, and stop legally held guns from getting into the hands of criminals in the first place. If they do everything that can be reasonably expected of them and yet their gun gets stolen then they have nothing to worry about.

And just how big is that problem? When you take out the criminal element, the homeowners who already have insurance that covers such activity, and the CCP holders who, by any standard, even the strictest, pose no discernible problem to begin with, just how many of these "victims" are there that need compensation?

If they leave their gun laying around or just 'lose' it or loan it to someone they don't have certainty isn't going to be an idiot with it, or sell it to a stranger who has mental illness or a criminal record, then yes the gun owner should take responsibility and the gun insurance is ONE measure which could help achieve that as well as make reparations to anyone injured with that gun guaranteed rather than a lottery as to whether the gun owner has any assets worth suing for or whether society as a whole has to pick up the tab for the irresponsible gun owner's incompetence.

Again, just what do you base your assumption that the majority of law abiding citizens are doing this on? 300 million firearms in the US, at minimum 35% of all households have one or more firearms, and yet the vast majority of the incidents that result in a firearm being used to commit a violent crime can be placed within an extremely small area (75 counties out of 3000+) and to an extremely small portion of the population (less than 6%, including the victims).

But that is no reason to rule out compensation for the minority of incidents. Each one of those incidents is still a life cut short or radically changed by the actions of others.

You mention "minority of incidents". Care to give us some figures to back it up?
If by "minority" you mean .0001% then it is less than a statistically significant portion, and it does not provide the required compelling reason to burden any specific group or class of citizen. It could be achieved through a fund (as it is in many jurisdictions) paid for by all.

If it's so rare, the insurance will be affordable, moreso if you can convince the insurer that you are at a low risk of making a claim.

I reiterate there is a need, under our system, to provide a compelling reason for interfering with a right that has been deemed inherent.

And if she had had mandatory third party gun insurance are we certain her estate wouldn't have been liable for any compensation claims from those victim families?

In the first place, we don't know that she didn't have homeowners insurance that might still be claimed against. It apparently was the case for the perpetrators of the Columbine shooting.

And if keeping gun insurance premiums down to a reasonable amount meant she had a secure storage procedure for those guns, perhaps the mentally ill son would never have had access to them in the first place.

You are saying then that she didn't have the firearms secured? Or that her being murdered to obtain the firearms was not a sufficient reason to prevent her from denying the son access?

No single proposal is going to solve these problems and I'm fairly sure you have the mental capacity to understand that and consider a whole raft of proposals which may or may not include gun insurance, but please don't avoid the issue by just finding scenarios where the insurance would have no impact and ignoring the possibility that the insurance does have the potential to do some good in other scenarios.

I don't. But when those "scenarios" are much more often the case, and the scenarios by which a victim might be reasonably expected to receive compensation so incredibly rare, I simply find little justification.
Especially when there are reasonable alternatives that have a proven efficacy available.

 

[Nessie]

Maybe you can explain how this works. I'll give you an example:
A fifteen year old girl gets shot to death on a Chicago street corner, a victim of gang violence.
Who do her survivors file the insurance claim against?

Assuming it is an uninsured gun, no one. If it turns out to be an insured gun then depending on the circumstances either the guns user, owner, or both of them, or neither if the user has stolen it.

 

[Nessie]

The number of fatalities from STDs in the US is approximately 35,000 per year. That exceeds the number of all firearm fatalities. Sex causes more fatalities than firearms by a factor of three if we exclude suicides.......Edited so it doesn't rely on special pleading to argue that gun owners should be required to have insurance.......Edited to eliminate the special pleading.

Why should guns and sex be treated exactly the same by society? Without sex society grounds to a halt and after about 100 years will not exist at all. That is not the case with guns. All guns could vanish tomorrow and if anything US society would benefit as it becomes harder for Americans to kill each other.

I can justify the reasoning behind insuring guns. They are not an essential to society, they kill and cost society a lot of money. There are also various other instances where insurance is compulsory, such as for most vehicles and if you take out a mortgage. It is not special pleading where there is a justification and other examples where treatment is the same.

Oh, that's right. The arguments against gun ownership or for increased restrictions aren't actually meant to be taken literally. That's a bizarre strategy, piling failure on top of failure advocating a position that requires special pleading, arguments from incredulity, appeals to ignorance, hyperbole, and even acknowledging that the arguments are not meant to be taken as true. As arguments go, it's a long way from being rational or objective, but interesting nonetheless.

I was responding to a comment about insurance, not gun ownership or restrictions. It is dishonest of you to take what I said out of context.

 

[Nessie]

Except in this case, you would be making group A (legal gun owners) pay the premiums to cover the misuse of firearms by group B (criminal/prohibited/illegal/gang gun owners).

So can we cut out all of the talk of "no-claims", "premium reductions for being responsible" etc?… under Nessie's ideas payouts will be dominated almost exclusively by the actions of group B. Therefore, people in group A would see no material change in their premium based on their actions… it would effectively just be a a flat rate levy and have no impact on behavior (group A isn't the problem and is not rewarded for good behaviour, Group B isn't paying anything for their misdeeds).


This is just an attempt at collective punishment for anyone guilty of the "original sin" of owning a firearm. This kind of levy would perhaps be more appropriately targeted at felons who have re-entered the community after prison.

Wrong. I am saying insurance pays out for insured guns, not uninsured ones. So gun owners with insured guns will not be footing the bill for uninsured guns. Instead they will continue with the present set up of society in general foots the bill for uninsured guns.

 

[Giz]

Assuming it is an uninsured gun, no one. If it turns out to be an insured gun then depending on the circumstances either the guns user, owner, or both of them, or neither if the user has stolen it.

So now you are saying that the vast majority of gun homicides and injuries will NOT be covered by the insurance?

What is the point again, and how would it improve that situation that currently exist?

 

[Nessie]

Yes, it does. Do you need me to list some of the costs?

And you're just cherry picking one part of what goes on with guns, too, so there's nothing false about the comparison (not analogy).

Guns and sex are very different. This attempt to make an equivalence is a complete fail for the prime reason of ban sex and we are all gone in about 100 years, ban guns and society will continue and may even get better.

Unless you're suggesting that any cost from legally owned guns provides sufficient justification, then this is irrelevant. And if you are taking this position, then your views are so deeply irrational that there's no point in even talking to you about them.

I don't follow what your point is there.

That's a problem for drivers who essentially need to continue to drive. But gun ownership is often optional, so future rate increases could be avoided by simply forfeiting gun ownership at that point. But the damage is already done, so insurance did nothing to prevent it.



You're lumping responsible gun owners (many of whom are already insured) together with violent criminals. But they have no more in common than non-gun owners do except for a superficial similarity. Responsible gun owners are no more to blame for criminal gun use than anyone else. So you have no justification for placing additional burdens on them, other than your own prejudices. You cannot legitimately treat everyone in this group as being equivalent.



In other words, incentives for responsible action already exist without mandating insurance. Furthermore, if you mandate insurance, it doesn't matter if there were other incentives to insure, so I don't know why you bothered pointing that out. In fact, it undermines your case by suggesting that the mandate is largely superfluous. But we already knew that: as I've pointed out repeatedly, many gun owners are already insured.



But that's not a legitimate generalization to make.

Some people chose not to get a car because the insurance is going to be too costly for them. They tend to be youths with no driving history and people who have made a number of claims or a major claim. I would expect youths and those who have made various claims for guns or had a major claim made against them to pay higher premiums. If they chose to not have a gun rather than pay, it is the same as with other insurances, not just vehicles.

How many times do have to be told that my argument for insurance means insured guns will not be paying out for uninsured ones?

That some gun owners are already insured means compulsory insurance will only impact them in that their rates may change as a they become part of a larger group as they are joined by gun owners who did not insure.

 

[Nessie]

I have no collective responsibility for the actions of people who bear only superficial similarity to myself, and whose actions I cannot affect.

Are you talking about criminals or law abiding guns owners as a collective you don't equate yourself with?

Yes, there are. But you have failed to actually understand them.

Words with nothing to back up what you have said.

That isn't even close to enough reason for compulsory insurance.

Why not?

Yeah, no.

You appear to be running out of arguments.

If you do not mean what you say, then the fault for any misunderstanding lies with you, not me. And you can claim that I don't understand insurance all you want to, but it just isn't so. You're the one who has made the patently false statements about insurance, not me. The defense that such statements were not to be taken literally is a joke.

I mean what I say, argue against what I actually said, not your made up version.

Please be more specific about what part of insurance you say I do not understand.

But they are not a collective. Just like blacks are not a collective. The higher crime rate among blacks cannot justify treating law-abiding blacks differently than anyone else.

The collective is owning/using a legal gun. Just as the collective for cars is owning/using one or for home insurance is having a mortgage, or having your life insured because you are alive, or having medical insurance because you are alive. Indeed the broader the collective is out with the common factor they have to be insured, the better as that brings down rates.

Are you sure you understand insurance?

 

[Nessie]

So now you are saying that the vast majority of gun homicides and injuries will NOT be covered by the insurance?

I have been saying that from the start. I agree with the idea of compulsory insurance but only to cover insured guns.

What is the point again, and how would it improve that situation that currently exist?

Please expand your claim of "what is the point". Insurance would improve the situation as it currently exists because gun owners and users with legal guns would take on the burden of the costs of accidents, unjustifiable and criminal use by them of their own guns.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you talking about criminals or law abiding guns owners as a collective you don't equate yourself with?

I am not a criminal. I will not be treated as a criminal because of some superficial similarity to a class of criminals.

Why not?

For multiple reasons. For one, we can't insure everything that costs society a lot of money, and there are many costly activities (such as sex) which we're never going to. So it's special pleading to claim that guns require insurance because of their cost to society. For another, even if cost alone were the issue (it isn't), insurance would STILL make no sense unless insurance actually covered those costs. But gun insurance would cover only a small fraction of the costs. So it's deeply illogical to appeal to the total costs as a justification for insurance when insurance would only deal with a small fraction of those costs.

You appear to be running out of arguments.

No, I simply grow weary of your inability to actually address arguments that are made.

I mean what I say, argue against what I actually said, not your made up version.

First you claim I'm reading your posts too literally, now you're claiming that I'm just making stuff up about your position. These are contradictory claims: if I'm reading your posts too literally, then that means I'm basing my interpretation off of exactly what you wrote, and NOT off of a made-up version. It's this sort of nonsense on your part that makes me despair of the possibility that you might actually learn anything.

 

[Ziggurat]

Guns and sex are very different.

Yes, they are. But the difference is not that one costs society a lot of money and the other does not. Therefore, if the criteria for insuring an activity is the cost that it imposes on society, there is no difference that matters to insurance. It's only if other factors matter as well that any difference will be important. But you haven't considered and don't understand what these other factors might be.

This attempt to make an equivalence is a complete fail for the prime reason of ban sex and we are all gone in about 100 years, ban guns and society will continue and may even get better.

Once again, an insurance requirement is not a ban. So that's not a relevant difference either.

I don't follow what your point is there.

Of course you don't.

How many times do have to be told that my argument for insurance means insured guns will not be paying out for uninsured ones?

Well, duh! I don't have to be told that because I never claimed that (although someone else here did want such a scheme). In fact, one of my arguments against your position relies on precisely this observation: the guns that cost society the most are owned by criminals, and so would not be insured. Your insurance scheme would therefore not do much of anything in regards to those costs. I've said that plenty of times before, so it's passing strange that you would pretend that I'm claiming something which contradicts the argument I keep making.

That some gun owners are already insured means compulsory insurance will only impact them in that their rates may change as a they become part of a larger group as they are joined by gun owners who did not insure.

Except that the proposal here is to require insurance against criminal acts, which homeowner's insurance does not cover. Really, do try to keep up.

 

[uk_dave]

I propose that all gun purchases must be preceded by a background check in order to establish whether or not the purchaser has a criminal record or a history of mental illness.

Now, I know you're going to say "Well, what about knives? Do you propose a background check before someone can purchase a knife?" and I will respond by pointing out that guns pose a much greater threat to society because the potential for harm that they can cause in the hands of criminals or the insane is higher than that for knives.

You may well respond by saying "Well what about cars? Are you going to insist on background checks before someone can purchase a car? Cars cause more death and injury than guns so it should apply to cars if it applies to guns"

Then you'll probably make some claim that background checks on purchasers of guns is an infringement of the 2A......

And so forth.

So how about it? Do we think mandatory background checks on purchases of guns should be implemented? Or is that a step too far in gun control?

Special pleading, perhaps?

Is there any other item which you can purchase in the US but only after you have passed a background check?

 

[Nessie]

I am not a criminal. I will not be treated as a criminal because of some superficial similarity to a class of criminals.

Insuring your gun to cover accidents, reckless use or criminal acts by you does not lump you in with common criminals

For multiple reasons. For one, we can't insure everything that costs society a lot of money, and there are many costly activities (such as sex) which we're never going to. So it's special pleading to claim that guns require insurance because of their cost to society. For another, even if cost alone were the issue (it isn't), insurance would STILL make no sense unless insurance actually covered those costs. But gun insurance would cover only a small fraction of the costs. So it's deeply illogical to appeal to the total costs as a justification for insurance when insurance would only deal with a small fraction of those costs.

Guns and sex are completely different things with completely different cost/benefit ratios to society and you have failed to address my point that end sex and you end society. That does not happen if you end guns.

It is nonsense to say because the insuring only of legal guns means a smaller part of the total cost of guns is covered is deeply illogical. You argument is based on you wanting to avoid insurance because criminals avoid it, which is not logical at all. Criminals avoid doing many things, that is not an excuse for others to avoid doing them as well. It is the reason why we punish criminals.

No, I simply grow weary of your inability to actually address arguments that are made.

Please give me an example of that.

First you claim I'm reading your posts too literally, now you're claiming that I'm just making stuff up about your position. These are contradictory claims: if I'm reading your posts too literally, then that means I'm basing my interpretation off of exactly what you wrote, and NOT off of a made-up version. It's this sort of nonsense on your part that makes me despair of the possibility that you might actually learn anything.

It is not contradictory when I am commenting on two different things, one which you took too literally and another where you made up my position. Just read what I say and direct your comments appropriately.

 

[Ziggurat]

Guns and sex are completely different things with completely different cost/benefit ratios to society and you have failed to address my point that end sex and you end society. That does not happen if you end guns.

I addressed this point: it's irrelevant. We're not discussing ending anything so what would happen under a hypothetical scenario where something ended is irrelevant to a scenario where nothing ends.

It is nonsense to say because the insuring only of legal guns means a smaller part of the total cost of guns is covered is deeply illogical. You argument is based on you wanting to avoid insurance because criminals avoid it, which is not logical at all. Criminals avoid doing many things, that is not an excuse for others to avoid doing them as well. It is the reason why we punish criminals.

I didn't make that argument at all. It's a straw man. You completely misunderstood what I said, which is now apparently the norm for you.

In support of your position to require insurance, you have referenced the cost to society that gun violence does, and the fact that this cost is large. But if insurance can only address a small fraction of that cost, then the total cost is irrelevant when considering insurance. It is only the fraction which would actually be covered which is relevant. But you don't even know what that is. And surely there is some non-zero quantity below which even you would concede that insurance is no longer necessary, wouldn't you? If you don't know how much would be covered, how can you conclude that it's enough to justify an insurance requirement.

The fact that criminals will avoid paying insurance means that the covered costs will be small, which is part of the above argument. But never once did I suggest that the avoidance of an action by criminals is in itself a reason for me to avoid doing it too.

Please give me an example of that.

See above.

It is not contradictory when I am commenting on two different things, one which you took too literally and another where you made up my position. Just read what I say and direct your comments appropriately.

You've got no grounds to complain about me making stuff up about your position, not after the nonsense you just posted.

 

[Ziggurat]

I propose that all gun purchases must be preceded by a background check in order to establish whether or not the purchaser has a criminal record or a history of mental illness.

Now, I know you're going to say "Well, what about knives?

Who is this "you" with whom you are conversing?

 

[Nessie]

Yes, they are. But the difference is not that one costs society a lot of money and the other does not. Therefore, if the criteria for insuring an activity is the cost that it imposes on society, there is no difference that matters to insurance. It's only if other factors matter as well that any difference will be important. But you haven't considered and don't understand what these other factors might be.

I agree that the cost is not just the financial cost when things go wrong. You also need to weigh up the beneficial costs and human costs. If you do that, sex has a massive benefit to society, not shared by guns.

Once again, an insurance requirement is not a ban. So that's not a relevant difference either.

The relevance is to do with your attempt to equate sex with guns, how they are nothing a like, how I can show you they are not a like and your attempt to compare them is flawed in relation to whether one should be insured and the other not.

Of course you don't.

Rather than make a bitchy comment how about further explaining your position?

Well, duh! I don't have to be told that because I never claimed that (although someone else here did want such a scheme). In fact, one of my arguments against your position relies on precisely this observation: the guns that cost society the most are owned by criminals, and so would not be insured. Your insurance scheme would therefore not do much of anything in regards to those costs. I've said that plenty of times before, so it's passing strange that you would pretend that I'm claiming something which contradicts the argument I keep making.

Good you do understand what I have argued for. I disagree with your its not worth it argument.

Except that the proposal here is to require insurance against criminal acts, which homeowner's insurance does not cover. Really, do try to keep up.

I am all for that, when it is the gun owners/users legal gun that is used in a crime by them or with their knowledge and agreement or where they have failed to properly secure it. I agree with gun owners here who say they should not be held responsible for all the criminals with their criminally held guns or where their properly secured gun is stolen and used in a crime.

 

[triforcharity]

I propose that all gun purchases must be preceded by a background check in order to establish whether or not the purchaser has a criminal record or a history of mental illness.
{snipped useless pointless text}

Then you'll probably make some claim that background checks on purchasers of guns is an infringement of the 2A......

And so forth.

So how about it? Do we think mandatory background checks on purchases of guns should be implemented? Or is that a step too far in gun control?

Special pleading, perhaps?

Is there any other item which you can purchase in the US but only after you have passed a background check?

I don't think you'll find anyone here that is against universal background checks.

 

[Nessie]

I addressed this point: it's irrelevant. We're not discussing ending anything so what would happen under a hypothetical scenario where something ended is irrelevant to a scenario where nothing ends.

So are you going to stop trying equate sex with guns and claim sex needs to be insured if guns are insured?

I didn't make that argument at all. It's a straw man. You completely misunderstood what I said, which is now apparently the norm for you.

In support of your position to require insurance, you have referenced the cost to society that gun violence does, and the fact that this cost is large. But if insurance can only address a small fraction of that cost, then the total cost is irrelevant when considering insurance. It is only the fraction which would actually be covered which is relevant. But you don't even know what that is. And surely there is some non-zero quantity below which even you would concede that insurance is no longer necessary, wouldn't you? If you don't know how much would be covered, how can you conclude that it's enough to justify an insurance requirement.

OK so how many accidents, reckless acts and criminal acts by lawful gun owners with legally held guns are needed before insurance becomes worthwhile?

My position is that with in 2007 and 613 fatal shooting accidents and 15,698 injuries

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#accidents

and from Mother Jones data that about half of the mass shootings since 1982 have been with legally held guns

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

plus the anecdotal evidence of gun owners using legal guns recklessly or to commit crimes, I say it is worthwhile having all legally held guns insured.

The fact that criminals will avoid paying insurance means that the covered costs will be small, which is part of the above argument. But never once did I suggest that the avoidance of an action by criminals is in itself a reason for me to avoid doing it too.

Good, we agree. Progress.

See above......



You've got no grounds to complain about me making stuff up about your position, not after the nonsense you just posted.

I have grounds to complain if that is what I think you are doing. If you then come back and explain (rather than make bitchy comments) then fine. If I think you are wrong about something, I will say so.

 

[uk_dave]

I don't think you'll find anyone here that is against universal background checks.

I agree.

Well, actually, I suspect there might be a couple (though I don't believe they have posted on this thread)

Is there any other product in the US which requires such checks before you can purchase it?