gun violence control through mandatory liability insurance and taxation - from Forbes

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

100. apparently you have no respect for the role that Medical examiners play in criminology

You have not proven that most victims of gun violence are criminals. Certainly with us having 87% of the casualties from gun violence being children of the top industrialized/developed countries? Are you considering them as criminals?

What mandatory liability insurance - and some limited taxation in support of it, as well as some taxation as well is a non-governmental means to encourage and require better gun ownership - as in better securing of weapons to comply with insurance polices, for example (like gun safes, trigger guards, etc.). It also means that with actuaries calculating risk, the costs of insurance will track with the risks of the firearms, making it more self-regulating. It seems apparent, pending more details being provided, for example, that the mother of Adam Lanza did not keep her firearms sufficiently secure to prevent her son from getting into them, with disastrous results.

Sorry, but I don't really care if you believe that most gun victims are criminals or not; I think that is crazy, there is not sufficient documentation for that position. But if that were to be true then the solution is to keep guns from getting into the hands of criminals better than we do. For that reason there is much more support for mandatory compliance with submission of the names of prohibited persons to the NICS, mandatory background checks and proof of same for ALL firearms transactions (including gifts, loans or leases), and mandatory reporting of all guns which go missing or are stolen.

This was highlighted just this week when a woman was arrested for being a straw purchaser for the guy who shot the fire fighters in New York. It would be true as well for the woman who was the straw purchaser of firearms in the Columbine shooting. The reality is that for example most mass shootings are done with legally purchased guns.

If we also start requiring people to show proof of insurance for the appropriate weapon when they purchase ammunition for that firearm, then we significantly reduce the ability of people who own illegal guns - the criminals - to be able to do anything with them. This could be enhanced by micro-stamping as well.

We have a gun problem in so far as they are used in gun violence. This is just one of a multi-pronged and comprehensive set of options to keep guns available to the safe and responsible gun enthusiast, while doing more to keep them out of the hands of those who are careless and irresponsible, or criminal.

It is legal under the commerce clause. We already both regulate guns and ammo, and tax them. I particularly like the way that this allows the market mechanism of insurance to minimize government restriction and policing, and at the same time provides offsets to costs to our society and economy from gun violence that should properly be paid by gun owners.

There is a lot of discussion of this idea making the rounds; I would suggest those who love guns and shooting sports should read up on them and figure out how this could work both to your benefit and to the benefit of our society/culture/economy. It has the potential to be a win/win proposition.

Here is another writer on the subject, from a writer I think is very intelligent an well-researched:

http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/336522/john-wasik-liability-insurance-firearms-reihan-salam#