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

[Ziggurat]

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

Are you going to stop claiming that the cost to society from guns justifies requiring insurance?

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

You're the one who wants to mandate insurance, you tell me what your cost threshold is.

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

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

How many of those involved gun owners accidentally shooting themselves? How many of them were covered by other insurance? How many of them involved illegal guns?

You don't know. But without that information, this data doesn't demonstrate anything about what insurance requirements could do in terms of covering costs.

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

But mass shootings are rare events. And this still tells us nothing about the relevant costs.

plus the anecdotal evidence of gun owners using legal guns recklessly or to commit crimes,

Plus the anecdotal evidence, which... isn't really evidence at all. Certainly not evidence that we can quantify in any way.

But them, you never seemed to actually care about that.

I say it is worthwhile having all legally held guns insured.

Sure you do. But you can't actually provide any objective criteria for this conclusion.

 

[uk_dave]

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

oh just every person on this thread who has tried to introduce an argument that something else in modern life is more dangerous than guns so that should have to have mandatory insurance too.

I'm sure if you scroll back through the pages you'll spot them.

The point is, of course, that the US government and (as triforcharity has pointed out) practically every person on this forum agrees with mandatory background checks for guns.

And yet there is no call for background checks for knives or cars or baseball bats or screwdriver sets..... etc etc etc

And, apparently making guns harder to obtain than any of those other items doesn't seem to be viewed as an infringement of the 2A

Fascinating isn't it?

But someone proposes a third party liability insurance for gun ownership and suddenly lots of people are trying to make an equivalance between guns and knives and cars etc etc etc and just can't understand why anyone would think that guns pose a greater risk, in fact many demand proof that guns are more dangerous.

Well, there's your proof: Background checks.

If guns are safer than knives and cars, abolish background checks

 

[Nessie]

Are you going to stop claiming that the cost to society from guns justifies requiring insurance?

No. Does that mean you will resurrect the fallacy of comparing sex to guns?

You're the one who wants to mandate insurance, you tell me what your cost threshold is.



How many of those involved gun owners accidentally shooting themselves? How many of them were covered by other insurance? How many of them involved illegal guns?

You don't know. But without that information, this data doesn't demonstrate anything about what insurance requirements could do in terms of covering costs.



But mass shootings are rare events. And this still tells us nothing about the relevant costs.



Plus the anecdotal evidence, which... isn't really evidence at all. Certainly not evidence that we can quantify in any way.

But them, you never seemed to actually care about that.



Sure you do. But you can't actually provide any objective criteria for this conclusion.

That I cannot give you a precise cost of legally held guns used in accidents, reckless and criminal shootings does not mean there is no case to insure them. Your case appears to be based on its not worth it and you don't know how much it will cost, which are not reasons based on any evidence at all.

Oh and anecdotal evidence is still evidence. It is enough to help me establish that there is a cost to society of legally held guns.

 

[Ziggurat]

oh just every person on this thread who has tried to introduce an argument that something else in modern life is more dangerous than guns so that should have to have mandatory insurance too.

Background checks aren't equivalent to insurance, so this makes no sense.

The point is, of course, that the US government and (as triforcharity has pointed out) practically every person on this forum agrees with mandatory background checks for guns.

And yet there is no call for background checks for knives or cars or baseball bats or screwdriver sets..... etc etc etc

You missed the blindingly obvious. Background checks are a method to enforce something else, namely the prohibition on gun ownership by felons. There's no point in doing a background check on something we don't prohibit felons from doing. So the logical equivalent would be to challenge why we don't prohibit felons from owning knives, etc. Why didn't you argue for that instead?

I'm sure you thought you were clever, but you really just look silly.

 

[Ziggurat]

No.

Then I will continue to call you on your special pleading.

Does that mean you will resurrect the fallacy of comparing sex to guns?

It's not a fallacy. The only argument you've made for why you think it's a fallacy is pure nonsense, and has no bearing on anything we have discussed.

That I cannot give you a precise cost of legally held guns used in accidents, reckless and criminal shootings does not mean there is no case to insure them.

Correct. It only means that you haven't made the case.

Oh and anecdotal evidence is still evidence.

It's not evidence of what the total costs are, only that it's not zero. But unless your position is that any costs are sufficient to justify your preferred action, then it doesn't support your argument.

It is enough to help me establish that there is a cost to society of legally held guns.

That was never in dispute.

 

[AlBell]

It's a sad state of affairs when a very sarcastic post can be mistaken for the actual viewpoint of the anti-gun side.

The sad state of affairs is foreigners blathering about US matters they don't understand.

As to sarcasm you forgot the .

 

[AlBell]

Tough

Considering that your blather is worthless regarding US affairs of state, yup, tough.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

oh just every person on this thread who has tried to introduce an argument that something else in modern life is more dangerous than guns so that should have to have mandatory insurance too.

I'm sure if you scroll back through the pages you'll spot them.

Strange, I don't seem to remember anyone who objected to background checks. Perhaps you could point them out to us, as it is you who have made the statement.

The point is, of course, that the US government and (as triforcharity has pointed out) practically every person on this forum agrees with mandatory background checks for guns.

And yet there is no call for background checks for knives or cars or baseball bats or screwdriver sets..... etc etc etc

And, apparently making guns harder to obtain than any of those other items doesn't seem to be viewed as an infringement of the 2A

Fascinating isn't it?

But someone proposes a third party liability insurance for gun ownership and suddenly lots of people are trying to make an equivalance between guns and knives and cars etc etc etc and just can't understand why anyone would think that guns pose a greater risk, in fact many demand proof that guns are more dangerous.

Well, there's your proof: Background checks.

If guns are safer than knives and cars, abolish background checks

Your are employing the logical fallacy of false equivalency, Dave.
Background checks do not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment in the least. In order to infringe upon someone's right, that person must first actually possess the right. Prohibited persons, the only people who background checks bar from firearms possession, do not have that right to begin with.
Mandatory insurance does affect those who do have the right to keep and bear under the 2nd Amendment.
Thus, before the state can require such a restriction, it must show a compelling interest, and prove that the restriction is the only available, or least restrictive, means of satisfying the compelling interest.
This has been pointed out to you time and time again, and yet you either fail to comprehend it, or choose to ignore it.
When you get around to providing that compelling interest, and showing that insurance is the only way, or the least restrictive way, to remedy it, then you can begin to make your argument.
Until then, you're still in the starting blocks.

 

[uk_dave]

So, we all agree that firearms are more dangerous than knives and cars, correct?

Or am I missing the real reason why background checks are acceptable for guns but are not required for those other things?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

So, we all agree that firearms are more dangerous than knives and cars, correct?

Or am I missing the real reason why background checks are acceptable for guns but are not required for those other things?

Apparently, you don't even have a clue. I spelled it out for you in the post I made just above yours.
I'm really getting frustrated by your inability to comprehend what is, in reality, a very simple concept.
Do you want me to re-state it without using any big words?

 

[uk_dave]

Apparently, you don't even have a clue. I spelled it out for you in the post I made just above yours.
I'm really getting frustrated by your inability to comprehend what is, in reality, a very simple concept.
Do you want me to re-state it without using any big words?

A simple yes or no to the first question would suffice.

If your answer is no, then perhaps you could explain to me what the basis is for requiring background checks only for firearms.

Much appreciated.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

A simple yes or no to the first question would suffice.

If your answer is no, then perhaps you could explain to me what the basis is for requiring background checks only for firearms.

Much appreciated.

The answer is "no". I'll explain carefully, so try to follow along, and please do not complain if the terminology appears too simplistic.

The Constitution of the United States, is designed as a bill of negative rights, unlike your Constitution, which is composed of permissive rights.
The first ten amendments (known collectively as the Bill of Rights), are inherent rights, not permissive rights. This means they are held to be inalienable, that is, existing in nature, not granted by the government. The Bill of Rights serves to prohibit the government from interfering with those inherent rights. It does not grant permissions, it bars interference.

The 2nd Amendment recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and bars the government from interfering with that right.
But, as with all the others listed in the Bill of Rights, it is not an absolute right.
As example, even though the 1st Amendment recognizes the right to free speech, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. But to interfere with these rights, the the government must show a compelling interest to justify such interference. Compelling means that it must be of over riding necessity for all citizens, and further, that it be the only, or at worst, least intrusive method of accomplishing the goal.
In regards to the 2nd Amendment, there are persons who are excluded from exercising this right. Specifically those, who by their actions, have forfeited said right, either permanently or temporarily. Felons and persons adjudicated as non compos mentis fall into this category.
The government has demonstrated a compelling interest in restricting this right, and shown the reason for such restriction to be the only, or the least intrusive, way to resolve the problem.
Background checks do not interfere with the law abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms. They specifically apply only to excluded persons.

The NY insurance scheme not not meet this very high standard. It doesn't even come close. The best you (and by "you" I mean not only yourself, but everyone in this thread who has supported it) have been able to come up with is that it will positively affect only a small portion of the citizenry at large.
That is not sufficient.
What part of this is so difficult to comprehend that even though it has been repeatedly numerous times, during this thread and others, the anti-2nd Amendment faction still cannot understand it?

 

[uk_dave]

The government has demonstrated a compelling interest in restricting this right, and shown the reason for such restriction to be the only, or the least intrusive, way to resolve the problem.

What is the compelling interest?

Seriously, you just typed all that without ever getting close to answering the question.

Are guns more dangerous than knives? You say 'no', because you are desperately trying to avoid the implications which result from saying 'yes'.

You then give me a lecture about 'rights' and the '2nd amendment' (thank you for that), but nothing in there explains why the right to bear purchase arms can be infringed by background checks and yet no such checks apply to any other purchase in the US.

Is your point that it's because it's a 'right' rather than.... well, I don't know, what do you call purchases of other things?

Okay, maybe I can see where you're coming from:

The government can't ban guns because they are a right, but it can establish a criteria where certain people have this right removed from them.

The government can ban knives, because you don't actually have a right to purchase them, so because it has the ability to ban knives (but doesn't) it therefore doesn't (cannot?) demand background checks for knife purchases?

Is that correct?

ETA: The question still remains, however, why do guns require to be kept out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill, when knives, which on this thread have been claimed to be just as dangerous if not more so, aren't restricted in any way by the US government, despite you not having an intrinsic right to purchase them as protected by the Bill of Rights?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

What is the compelling interest?

Do you seriously want me to believe that you see no compelling interest in restricting the right to keep and bear arms from those who, by their own actions, have demonstrated a willingness to commit crimes of the most serious nature or lack the mental faculties to understand the effect of their own actions?
To put it in more simplistic terms would be considered an insult to anyone with an IQ above that of a none too bright 6 year old, but if you are truly incapable of comprehending this, let me know.

Seriously, you just typed all that without ever getting close to answering the question.

It was explained to you, and in the most simplistic manner possible without being insulting. Your lack of comprehension is not my problem.

Are guns more dangerous than knives? You say 'no', because you are desperately trying to avoid the implications which result from saying 'yes'.

Guns are more dangerous, as offensive/defensive weapons, than knives. That is why guns became so popular many years ago.
There are no "implications" to avoid. This does not mean that knives are not dangerous weapons in themselves.
Please show me where I, or anyone for that matter, have posted on this thread that "knives are more dangerous than guns". Other wise you are merely attempting to misdirect the debate once again.
I brought up the subject of knives only within the context of their prevalence in the commission of crimes in your country, and yet you apparently object to the imposition of a similar insurance scheme when the ball is in your court. The relative effectiveness of the weapon used has no bearing on the theory.

You then give me a lecture about 'rights' and the '2nd amendment' (thank you for that), but nothing in there explains why the right to bear purchase arms can be infringed by background checks and yet no such checks apply to any other purchase in the US.

That is because it does not infringe upon the right. No non-excluded person is being prevented from acquiring a firearm by a back ground check. Only excluded persons are affected by the NICS checks. They do not possess that right to begin with.

Is your point that it's because it's a 'right' rather than.... well, I don't know, what do you call purchases of other things?

The same thing we call the purchase of a firearm: a purchase.

Okay, maybe I can see where you're coming from:

The government can't ban guns because they are a right, but it can establish a criteria where certain people have this right removed from them.

Got it in one! Well, actually, you had to be repeatedly hit over the head with it, but at least you're finally beginning to understand.
The government has shown a compelling interest in prohibiting certain persons from possessing firearms. It doesn't matter how they acquire them.

The government can ban knives, because you don't actually have a right to purchase them, so because it has the ability to ban knives (but doesn't) it therefore doesn't (cannot?) demand background checks for knife purchases?
Is that correct?

No, it isn't correct. The government could ban knives if it so chose, or require a background check before allowing a purchase. These laws could be on the books for months, or even a few years, before being challenged (and they would be), but it has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms. I would venture to guess that the legislator who attempted to introduce such a bill (and all the legislators who might be persuaded to vote for it) would find themselves voted out of office before it reached the appellate level (if, indeed, it ever even got that far), but that is not germane to the debate. Read DC vs Heller, and the host of case law that has been provided to enlighten others (and probably yourself as well) who have used this weak argument in the past.
The reasons for excluding persons from possessing firearms has been clearly demonstrated time and time again, with case law provided to explain how SCOTUS arrived at the decision.

ETA: The question still remains, however, why do guns require to be kept out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill, when knives, which on this thread have been claimed to be just as dangerous if not more so, aren't restricted in any way by the US government, despite you not having an intrinsic right to purchase them as protected by the Bill of Rights?

Just where have I stated that knives are just dangerous when used as weapons, if not more so, than firearms.
If you are unable to do that, then your comment is nothing more than yet another attempt to build a straw man argument.

 

[Nessie]

Then I will continue to call you on your special pleading.



It's not a fallacy. The only argument you've made for why you think it's a fallacy is pure nonsense, and has no bearing on anything we have discussed.


Correct. It only means that you haven't made the case.



It's not evidence of what the total costs are, only that it's not zero. But unless your position is that any costs are sufficient to justify your preferred action, then it doesn't support your argument.



That was never in dispute.

From RationalWiki

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_pleading

"Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules. While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a formal fallacy when a person doesn't adequately justify why the case is special."

I am arguing guns are a genuine special case. I satisfied that there is evidence and good reason to make compulsory insurance apply to guns. There are other circumstances where compulsory insurance applies, so guns are not being singled out for this condition.

Again from RationalWiki

"The key to this being a fallacy is that there is no adequate reason for treating the situation differently. Since a different situation is, by definition, different, there is always some distinction to be made; the issue is whether this difference is sufficient. Obviously, the person making the argument thinks that it is sufficient, and stating that it is not will simply be dismissed as not recognizing the fact that this situation is totally different."

Guns are different from sex and all the other equivalences that have been put forward from kayaks to swimming pools to cars. The situation with guns compared to the sex etc is completely different and there is a good reason to insure, so there is no special pleading to say they should be insured to cover accidents, reckless behaviour and homicide.

Your argument consists of guns are like lots of other things (they are not), there is no reason to insure them because criminals don't (very poor logic) and not enough people are killed or injured to make insuring worthwhile (which is nonsense).

 

[Ziggurat]

I am arguing guns are a genuine special case.

No you aren't. You're only claiming it. You have not put forth a coherent argument to support that claim.

Your argument consists of guns are like lots of other things (they are not)

They are for the only criteria you've actually used to justify your position. That they are not the same for criteria that have nothing to do with your position (like what would happen if they were banned) is completely irrelevant. And it is only such irrelevancies that you have ever appealed to.

there is no reason to insure them because criminals don't (very poor logic)

I've explained how you completely misunderstood that argument already, yet you persist in putting forth this straw man.

and not enough people are killed or injured to make insuring worthwhile (which is nonsense).

How do you know it's nonsense if you can't quantify the harm you use to justify your position? Are you claiming that any nonzero harm is sufficient justification?

 

[Nessie]

No you aren't. You're only claiming it. You have not put forth a coherent argument to support that claim.

Just saying that as if it is a fact does not constitute an argument. I have pout forward a number of very good reason why guns should be insured.

They are for the only criteria you've actually used to justify your position. That they are not the same for criteria that have nothing to do with your position (like what would happen if they were banned) is completely irrelevant. And it is only such irrelevancies that you have ever appealed to.

The criteria I apply is over all cost, non monetary benefit and utility in society. With those criteria guns are nothing like sex, kayaks or vehicles.

I've explained how you completely misunderstood that argument already, yet you persist in putting forth this straw man.

So do you agree just because criminals will not be insured is no reason to say lawfully held guns need not be insured?

How do you know it's nonsense if you can't quantify the harm you use to justify your position? Are you claiming that any nonzero harm is sufficient justification?

How do you know its not? I have shown you stats to do with accidents and mass shootings and I say they alone make insurance worthwhile. If the USA had UK levels of gun violence, crime and accidents I would not be suggesting compulsory insurance, so I am not claiming anything non zero is sufficient justification. I am saying the USA's problem is so bad that compulsory insurance is a good idea.

 

[Ziggurat]

Just saying that as if it is a fact does not constitute an argument. I have pout forward a number of very good reason why guns should be insured.

No you haven't. You've put forward a number of nonsense arguments.

The criteria I apply is over all cost, non monetary benefit and utility in society. With those criteria guns are nothing like sex, kayaks or vehicles.

You've never once tried to seriously assess the benefits of gun ownership. And the overall costs are irrelevant to insurance. It's only the insurable costs that matter, and you have no idea what those are.

So do you agree just because criminals will not be insured is no reason to say lawfully held guns need not be insured?

Not in and of itself, but I never claimed it was. That's only one piece of the puzzle, but it sure as hell matter. It even matters for your argument, if you're being honest.

How do you know its not?

The burden of proof doesn't lie with me. You're the one who wants to change the law and impose burdens on people. It's up to you to justify your position. And you have consistently failed to do so.

I have shown you stats to do with accidents and mass shootings and I say they alone make insurance worthwhile.

Every statistic you have shown has been irrelevant. Only the insurable costs are relevant for determining the benefits of insurance, and nothing you have presented tells us what those are.

If the USA had UK levels of gun violence, crime and accidents I would not be suggesting compulsory insurance, so I am not claiming anything non zero is sufficient justification. I am saying the USA's problem is so bad that compulsory insurance is a good idea.

But you don't actually know that. You concede that there should be some threshold, but you can't actually tell me what that threshold is, nor can you tell me whether we're above it or below it. And just saying it's somewhere between the USA and the UK doesn't suffice: you're using a predetermined conclusion to determine your criteria, rather than what should logically be the reverse. It's intellectually dishonest.

 

[BStrong]

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?

BG checks will probably pass review under Heller and Mcdonald, and make good sense. California already requires BG checks and a 10 day waiting period for possession for all firearm transfers.

 

[Courier]

Yup, Cuomo is going to pull back on the 7-round magazine limit.

They are writing an amendment that lets folks buy & own 10-round magazines, but they can only load 7 unless they are at a gun range.

Pretty *********** stupid.

Why are they doing this? Cause the geniuses realized that you can't buy a 7-round magazine for any firearm on Earth.