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

[bynmdsue]

Cause the geniuses realized that you can't buy a 7-round magazine for any firearm on Earth.

Colt Automatic .45 1911 7-rnd magazine. But there are 8s available as well.

 

[Nessie]

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

Its panto time! Oh no he hasn't, oh yes he has!

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.

More bland statements passed as an alternative to an argument.

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.

To what extent does it matter that criminals will not be insured?

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.



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.

I can show legal guns cost society resources to treat the injured and deal with the dead.

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.

Has there got to be a precise figure, like $3,500,756? Or can it be within a range? Can you tell me what would be acceptable to you?

 

[Ziggurat]

To what extent does it matter that criminals will not be insured?

To the extent that the costs they impose cannot be used as any part of the justification for the insurance requirement. Why is that not obvious?

I can show legal guns cost society resources to treat the injured and deal with the dead.

But you can't show how much.

Has there got to be a precise figure, like $3,500,756? Or can it be within a range? Can you tell me what would be acceptable to you?

It doesn't have to be precise, a ballpark figure will do. But you do have to justify it.

 

[Nessie]

To the extent that the costs they impose cannot be used as any part of the justification for the insurance requirement. Why is that not obvious?

I have never said compulsory insurance for guns should be used to pay for uninsured guns, I was never using that as a justification. Was that not obvious?

But you can't show how much.

It doesn't have to be precise, a ballpark figure will do. But you do have to justify it.

I all ready have justified it with accidents and mass shootings alone. I cannot give you any figures as to what the insurance would cost, but that does not negate my argument for insurance.

 

[GeeMack]

I cannot give you any figures as to what the insurance would cost, [...]

So the argument for this particular mandatory restriction on law abiding gun owners cannot be objectively substantiated. That was already glaringly obvious.

ETA...

It doesn't have to be precise, a ballpark figure will do. But you do have to justify it.

It appears it can't be justified.

 

[theprestige]

I have never said compulsory insurance for guns should be used to pay for uninsured guns, I was never using that as a justification. Was that not obvious?




I all ready have justified it with accidents and mass shootings alone. I cannot give you any figures as to what the insurance would cost, but that does not negate my argument for insurance.

So here's the problem that you have to solve:

In the US, gun ownership is legally a right, which means the government must clear a relatively high bar for interfering. Usually, it has to show a compelling reason, and it has to show that its proposed solution is the only or the least bad solution. Government infringement upon the rights of its citizens is not something that should be taken lightly.

In the context of this thread, that responsibility falls to you, as the proponent of the solution, to show a compelling reason, and to show that your solution is the best or least bad solution. You should not take lightly any proposal to infringe upon people's rights.

So far, the basis of your proposal seems to be that the cost to society is very great, and therefore mandatory insurance is the least bad (or possibly only?) solution.

So of course it is reasonable for you to be asked--and for you to answer--the question, "how great is the cost, exactly?" If the cost to society is not actually very great, then your reason for infringing on people's rights is not very compelling.

And of course it is also reasonable for you to be asked--and for you to answer--the question, "is your solution the only or least bad solution?" Another, related question is, "does it even solve the problem at all?"

One thing that Ziggurat is considering--and that he is asking you to consider as well--is whether your proposed infringement of people's rights will actually solve the problem you're trying to solve. If the costs to society will be incurred mainly by people who don't buy insurance, then your proposal, far from being the only or least bad solution, isn't a solution at all. It also then lacks a compelling reason for infringement.

Comparisons and contrasts have been drawn. Poll taxes, for example: The US Supreme Court has found that it violates the Constitution to require people to pay to exercise their right to vote. It's reasonable to think that your proposal, which amounts to a requirement that people pay to exercise their right to bear arms, is similarly unconstitutional. So you really do have to give a compelling reason for it. And, because your proposal is based on "cost to society", your compelling reason, at its core, must present good, hard, compelling numbers.

Other comparisons, focusing specifically on your "cost to society" argument, have also been made. The cost to society from unregulated sexual intercourse is substantial, but it does not meet the standard of a compelling reason to infringe on people's rights.

Similarly, the cost to society from accidents and criminal acts arising from unregulated knife use is substantial, but it does not meet the standard of a compelling reason to infringe on people's rights.

This is why people keep accusing you of special pleading: Because you keep making special pleas for rights infringement in the case of firearms, but have so far failed to show that firearms are actually special in the specific way that is relevant to your plea.

 

[Nessie]

OK, I accept I cannot give you the figures, so in your eyes the argument is a fail. But since you cannot give me any figures either, you should accept that the argument can also be a success, we just don't know with the data we have available.

 

[Giz]

OK, I accept I cannot give you the figures, so in your eyes the argument is a fail. But since you cannot give me any figures either, you should accept that the argument can also be a success, we just don't know with the data we have available.

But surely the onus is on those who want to change the status quo (especially when it may require abridging rights) to provide the evidence?

 

[theprestige]

OK, I accept I cannot give you the figures, so in your eyes the argument is a fail. But since you cannot give me any figures either, you should accept that the argument can also be a success, we just don't know with the data we have available.

I have never for a moment doubted that a sound argument, rooted in fact, watered with evidence, and pruned by logic, would be a great success. Perhaps you should return to this thread when you have one.

 

[Ziggurat]

OK, I accept I cannot give you the figures, so in your eyes the argument is a fail. But since you cannot give me any figures either, you should accept that the argument can also be a success, we just don't know with the data we have available.

I accept that there is a potential for that part of the argument to be valid, yes. However, you and I may not agree about the appropriate tradeoff between freedom and security. That is ultimately a value judgment, and one can't "win" that argument in any objective sense. So even if we could settle the facts, we would probably still disagree.

But the facts are not settled. You want to change our laws, based upon facts you don't know. And that is not enough.

 

[triforcharity]

Not to mention that paying insurance to exercise a right, flies in the face of a RIGHT....

 

[AlBell]

So the argument for this particular mandatory restriction on law abiding gun owners cannot be objectively substantiated. That was already glaringly obvious.

ETA...

It appears it can't be justified.

Even Scientific Wild Ass Guesses are also apparently unavailable; not even a WAG.

 

[jimbob]

The data in the following report suggests that making someone liable for their gun up to a legal transfer of ownership or five-years after they report it lost/stolen would affect a significant number of criminal guns.
Crime Gun Risk Factors: Buyer, Seller, Firearm, and Transaction Characteristics Associated with Gun Trafficking and Criminal Gun Use
Report to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice
By
Christopher S. Koper
(With Contributions by Mary Shelley)
2007 (PDF)

The full extent of straw purchasing cannot be determined from available data, 4 but it appears to be a fairly common supply mechanism for criminals and juveniles. A survey of juveniles incarcerated in four states, for instance, revealed that a third had asked someone, most commonly a family member or friend, to buy a gun for them at a retail outlet at some point in the past (Sheley and Wright, 1993:6). Another rough indicator is the share of crime guns that are new but that have changed hands at least once. To illustrate, approximately one quarter of guns confiscated by police are less than three years old, and most of these are recovered from persons other than the original buyers (Cook and Braga, 2001:294-295); this implies that many of these guns were diverted from the primary market via straw purchasing and other means.

Responsible gun owners who take adequate precautions should have little problem.

 

[Nessie]

I accept that there is a potential for that part of the argument to be valid, yes. However, you and I may not agree about the appropriate tradeoff between freedom and security. That is ultimately a value judgment, and one can't "win" that argument in any objective sense. So even if we could settle the facts, we would probably still disagree.

But the facts are not settled. You want to change our laws, based upon facts you don't know. And that is not enough.

Is there any cost where you would accept that legally held guns have to be insured? Or no matter the cost, gun owners should not be forced to take out insurance and the whole of society foots the bill?

 

[Ziggurat]

Is there any cost where you would accept that legally held guns have to be insured? Or no matter the cost, gun owners should not be forced to take out insurance and the whole of society foots the bill?

I can't rule out the possibility in the abstract. But it's hard for me to imagine a realistic scenario in the US anytime soon where that would be the case.

 

[triforcharity]

Is there any cost where you would accept that legally held guns have to be insured? Or no matter the cost, gun owners should not be forced to take out insurance and the whole of society foots the bill?

Nope. It's really simple. Don't infringe on rights. The right to free speech, the right to be secure in your persons, to be free from illegal prosecution, etc. Don't mess with them. Period.

 

[WildCat]

The data in the following report suggests that making someone liable for their gun up to a legal transfer of ownership or five-years after they report it lost/stolen would affect a significant number of criminal guns.

Under what legal theory does that work?

 

[Ziggurat]

Under what legal theory does that work?

I believe the legal theory is known in technical terms as " **** gun owners".

 

[jimbob]

I believe the legal theory is known in technical terms as " **** gun owners".

No, only those who can't keep hold of their guns.

If a mining company kept explosives insecurely and they were stolen and used illegally the company would be partly liable in many situations. I can't see a fundamental difference.

A large proportion of illegal guns have recently been legal guns.

 

[triforcharity]

Civil liability, sure. Criminal? No.