Geoffrey MillerVerified account

Not tax, require gun insurance instead. ‘Responsible’ gun owners will pay little or nothing and will have nothing to complain about.

Gun insurance would never really pay out. There aren’t many gun accidents. Insurance isn’t going to cover purposeful shootings. And so all it ends up being is a defacto tax to discourage gun ownership. And you’d need to overturn Heller for that.

Why are you limiting insurance to accidents? The insurance pays for ALL damage done by the insured and registered gun. The owner is then simply paying the true cost of gun ownership and no longer getting a free ride.

Because that’s the point of insurance? Insurance doesn’t cover purposeful acts. Otherwise it’s not “insurance.” You can’t walk into StateFarm and say, “yes, I’m going to go shoot up a school and would like some insurance.”

You’re also wrong anyway. The amount of purposeful shootings carried out by lega gun owners is very small. Unless you think illegal gun owners would buy this gross thing you’re calling insurance?

Illegal guns come from a legal owner at some point, obviously. Why is this concept so hard for you?

So if your gun gets stolen, you’re liable? That’s not how our tort system works. You aren’t required to guard against illegality in the American tort system, unless that is the very reason for the duty (bodyguard for example.) So now you’ve changed insurance and liability.

Yes, that is the contract you sign for the privilege of having a gun. You are financially responsible for any damage done by that gun. Don’t want that responsibility, don’t own a gun.