Today on the radio I heard one of the more sensible solutions to the question of gun ownership. Require insurance for gun owners. Think about it, if I get behind the wheel of a car I'm required to own car insurance. Most people are cool with that; even an excellent driver recognizes that they might make mistakes and that other drivers on the road may make mistakes and so we mandate insurance coverage as a condition to getting behind the wheel. Safe drivers that drive sensible safe cars tend to pay a lot less then drivers with many convictions for unsafe driving or someone who chooses to commute in a Yamaha YZF R1 crotch rocket. Over time ones driving record becomes the basis for a financial decision about the cost of insuring a particular driver.
Contrast that with guns. I can go to a store, buy an AR-15 and if I use that gun illegally in a mass shooting, now most likely society has to pay for it. In that case suing for damages may not make sense because the gun owner may not be able to pay. Furthermore, tax payers now need to foot the bill to convict and incarcerate the shooter. I've never owned a gun in my life, why should I pay for a gun owners public defender? Why should the victims be stuck with the medical bill resulting from some dick deciding to open fire on them?
I'm surprised nobody proposed this sooner. Stick gun owners with a monthly insurance bill. That's fair. We live in a litigious society, I want to be able to sue you and get paid if you shoot me. No exceptions for police, they pay too. Maybe they'll think twice before shooting first and asking questions later if their insurance rates go up. The captain may not cover his irresponsible ass knowing the cost of insuring the officers gun is too high, same way a doctor with 100 malpractice suits may seek out a different career because insurance is prohibitive. If one uses a gun in self defense, then insurance still covers the damages and expenses but ones insurance rate doesn't increase cause they used the gun legitimately. If your child plays with your gun and shoots themselves, then insurance pays for that too, but now if the courts don't take your gun away, your insurance rate goes up dramatically because you didn't behave like a responsible gun owner by securing your weapon. Or consider someone who wants to buy 5 AR-15's, well now they may think twice 'cause that gun is really expensive to insure, as it should be, cause it can kill a lot more people a lot faster than a 12 gauge shotgun.
Any thoughts? Should gun owners be mandated to insure their guns and the damages it may cause or is that an overly restrictive burden for gun ownership?