04-03-2013, 10:22 PM
cbelt3 wrote:
FWIW.. it's important to recognize that auto insurance came about due to tort issues.
That's a meaningless point. It came about because there was no way of ensuring that a victim of a car crash would be able to receive compensation, the exact same situation as with a gun.
cbelt3 wrote: However if a firearm is used to injure or kill people, there are existing criminal laws to handle the problem. Many states allow 'personal bonds' to be posted in the place of insurance..
Same with cars. What is your point?
cbelt3 wrote: Requiring insurance as a financial guarantee against the commission of a heinous crime is a bit odd.
Where do you come up with this stuff? There are many ways that guns cause harm...hunting accidents, self defense gone awry, overheated domestic arguments, theft of the gun and use by a criminal, undocumented sale of guns to criminals, etc. Insurance is a financial guarantee that the victim of a gunshot will have some mechanism for compensation, something that does not exist now.
cbelt3 wrote: It's a back-channel way to ban gun ownership.
No it's not. This is complete nonsense, and if true would mean that car insurance would be a back-channel way to ban cars. It's a straightforward way of injecting a little responsibility into the out of control firearms industry.