Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So if a destitute gun-owner negligently misuses or mishandles his or her firearm resulting in an injury to another party, the victim will have recourse and will be able to collect monetary compensation? Seems reasonable to me.
They (victims of negligence) already do and can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58
I think they are on to something here.
If you were required to have insurance to buy a gun, just as with a car, the insurance company would then take various factors into account to set your premium.
If you had a criminal record, or history of mental instability, your premium would be set so high that you might not purchase the weapon. If you have a clean record and proof of gun safety training, your premium would likely be very low.
It shifts the burden of background checks from government to the private sector
This is NY... they address problems with problematic solutions. Criminals are very ingenious. There are laws that prohibit murder, theft, and negligence.
What the unintended consequence will be?
Oh my insurance will be how much?
F that noise. Black market proliferation of firearm sales.
Like they currently do via straw purchases and other avenues to obtain firearms.
This won't burden nor deter what folks feel it will.
It will burden everyone else.
Not Real Activists just got caught with their pants down by Ollie North digging up Wayne Fudd Lapierre racking up charges to Zenga and other top end fashion manufacturers through a proxy-use of Ack-Mack credit card, and having Ack-Mack send NRA a bill for "consulting" and "billable hours for NRA clients"
RICO case for fraud tax evasion, and possibly money laundering/embezzlement and the Fudds are gone from Negotiating Rights Away.
So if a destitute gun-owner negligently misuses or mishandles his or her firearm resulting in an injury to another party, the victim will have recourse and will be able to collect monetary compensation? Seems reasonable to me.
They already do. What the heck are you talking about.
This is NY... they address problems with problematic solutions. Criminals are very ingenious. There are laws that prohibit murder, theft, and negligence.
What the unintended consequence will be?
Oh my insurance will be how much?
F that noise. Black market proliferation of firearm sales.
Like they currently do via straw purchases and other avenues to obtain firearms.
This won't burden nor deter what folks feel it will.
It will burden everyone else.
Well, being as NY has a murder and manslaughter rate FAR (as much as 1/3rd that) of some other states, don't actual statistics and deaths matter to you?
NY - 3.1 total per 100K
Texas 4.8
OK 6.0
SC 8.2
MO 8.3
Well, being as NY has a murder and manslaughter rate FAR (as much as 1/3rd that) of some other states, don't actual statistics and deaths matter to you?
NY - 3.1 total per 100K
Texas 4.8
OK 6.0
SC 8.2
MO 8.3
Seeing how murder qnd other crimes with a firearm had been on the decline since 06 the year I graduated highschool, long before the Safeact went into effect...
Yes.
Thanks for proving my point that NY solves problems with problematic solutions
Making mountains out of mole hills to erode liberty into a pirvilege, while ousting yourself as a feeler, not a thinker on the issue.
If NY is so concerned about public safety... perhaps it should take a good hard look at all their DWI issues...
Perhaps follow Florida's example. Get caught? Felony DWI.
There's no DWAI straight DWI Felony.
Where I'm from, the leading causes of death were
DWI
Car accident fatalities (usually speeding and a collision with a deer or losing control and smashing into a huge oak or pine tree or down an embankment)
Overdose
Slips/Falls
Drownings
Upstate had a big issue with substance abuse. Be it alcohol or narcotics.
Then again. You have to be drunk/high to live there.
So you are against laws because criminals will just break them?
I'm against policies and laws which punish law-abiding people. Knowing this sort of gun regulation will impact only law-abiding citizens and not criminals, who by the very definition break the law, yes I'm very much opposed to such insanity, as it would not help reduce crime one bit, and perhaps bring about an increase in crime.
They already do. What the heck are you talking about.
If a destitute, uninsured defendant has a judgment entered against him/her, the plaintiff has no practical recourse because, as they say, you can't get blood from a stone. If the defendant is insured, however, the plaintiff can collect compensation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
