Granted, there is no "perfect solution". We already do a lot of what you illustrate. Background checks, waiting periods are already key parts of the legal acquisition of firearms. Competency requirements are a part of the process for concealed carry. Adding another layer of financial burden on top of what's already there isn't going to address the illegal acquisition of firearms. It is a bandaid. It's not a solution or a productive addition to the current process.
Actually, most all of what you mentioned is not done consistently in most states. Competency testing may be done for concealed carry, but I was talking about for basic gun ownership. In fact in many states there is a movement to remove what little restrictions there are. Florida is a prime example. The idea that some think that more guns in schools is the answer is pure lunacy. I dont think insurance by itself is the answer, but we are not even close to making progress on this issue. In fact we are going backwards, removing what restrictions there are. The cost issue is just an excuse, AR-15s arent cheap to begin with yet teens have no problem buying them.
I do agree more guns in schools is a terrible plan. I would also venture to conjecture that a big part of the problem is the differences in requirements across the States. Not that you'd ever get them to agree on a single process (e.g., a single database to do background checks), but that would go a long way towards solving the actual problem.
A band aid is better than nothing? This is the hundredth or 101st school shooting this year. Doing nothing isn’t working.
How many bandaids does it take before we realize the problem is the overall solution? We had this issue when waiting periods were introduced to little avail. Same with background checks. We keep piling layers upon layers of burdening on each other and it's not fixing the actual problem.
It beats thoughts and prayers. I like the idea of you have the right to bear an arm that was available when the constitution was written, either that or tax bullets stored at home. In North Carolina in my youth there was no liquor by the drink. You joined clubs and got lockers. The club would then charge you a set up charge for every drink. Maybe something like that for bullets?
Not understanding. How is that different from charging you for each drink? And how would you enforce a bullet tax (other than the sales tax that is already being paid on it at purchase?)
I wasn't limiting my admittedly snarky comment to the insurance proposal. In fact, I said it was unworkable.
My apologies if you took my post as ad hominem. It wasn't meant as a comment on you personally, but upon what I perceived, perhaps wrongly, as your general position on gun control, i.e., putting hurdles for legal gun owners.
Here's my loooooong term solution. Think about your car that you own. As the owner, you are legally liable for any damage caused by your car - whether it's you or someone you give it to. The only way to remove you liability is to legally transfer ownership to someone else. If I sell my car to a private party, it's on me to make sure they register it appropriately. In fact, I can submit a form to the state indicating that I've sold the car and I'm no longer responsible for it. I propose we do the same thing for gun sales as a check on supply of guns getting into bad hands. The owner of a gun is responsible for anything bad that happens with that gun during their ownership. Full stop. Of course, the owner is background checked. But if that owner decides to sell the gun, pass it to a family member, whatever, they need to do it through an agent/dealer, with background check of the new recipient. Then and only then is ownership and liability given to the new owner. What does this accomplish? Over the long haul, it's a responsibility check, and limitation on the number of guns flowing into the wrong hands in the secondary market. Will it fix all problems? No. Will it do anything about the millions of guns already out there. Of course not. But maybe, decades from now, most of the guns still in circulation will be in the hands of responsible gun owners, people thoroughly vetted and background checked.
Many drivers don’t carry insurance. Hence the need for uninsured motorist coverage. More than 20% of Florida drivers are uninsured, new study says More than 20% of Florida drivers are uninsured, new study says
