Why not require insurance? And for automatic weapons - they must be kept at a gun club. Guns are toys to the rich and we can't take them away - but insurance requirements and making it expensive might do a lot to keep them from the less than sane.
If you are a homeowner and have shopped insurance you'll likely to have seen parts of the application inquiring if you own certain aggressive dog breeds or firearms, so there is that angle. Not all companies do that but some do.
I would not support the idea of firearms insurance having grown up with them, separate secure (hidden storage) of firearms and the ammunition was the order of the day and works well for the responsible. I submit that it would be the responsible owners that would secure said insurance whereas others would ignore a law requiring it. But that is the case with autos isn't it, that, and tags.
If any of you work in information security you are familiar with the APT (Advanced Persistent Threat), the attacker than never goes away. I will suggest that the similar mindset in humans, the highly motivated seeking to do harm, will find something beyond a firearm to do so and we have three examples: Mohammed Atta (and associates), Timothy McVey, and the Tsarnaev brothers.
But if it's a run of the mill school shooter or some toddler that picked up a gun and killed his sister, we're not talking about "highly motivated attackers", we're talking every day gun owners.
Good drivers buy car insurance and carry the losers, the same could go for gun owners.
Candidly, insurance cannot or will not prevent undesirable behaviors, only mitigate any financial impact resulting from those behaviors.
Firearms insurance won't address a home situation where the firearm and ammunition are not stored separately and securely such that a run-of-the-mill shooter or toddler can access them. Clearly the owner behaves in a less than responsible manner.
Auto insurance doesn't prevent a driver's behavior of looking at their phone while driving and clocking the car in front of them or the pedestrian crossing the street. And being honest, too many drive without auto insurance, or in my jurisdiction, the appropriate tag indicating proper registration.
If the conversation leads to highly restrictive firearms control in the general population, I submit those advocates need to do a deep dive into events in Northern Ireland from the 1960's to 1998. The highly motivated IRA were able to secure weaponry to fuel their terror campaign despite highly restrictive law intended to prevent such.
My point is that the one highly motivated to commit mayhem will find the means to do so.
Insurance against what? Getting shot by your kid who could get to the gun? Having your arsenal stolen? For paying the lawyer when you are on trial for assault or murder?
Good question on sanity. Details of any tightening are helpful to advance the conversation.
Why not require insurance? And for automatic weapons - they must be kept at a gun club. Guns are toys to the rich and we can't take them away - but insurance requirements and making it expensive might do a lot to keep them from the less than sane.
I think requiring insurance is an excellent idea.
But the conviction of the Crumbley's after they bought their obviously mentally ill son an AR-15 should wake some parents up.
If you are a homeowner and have shopped insurance you'll likely to have seen parts of the application inquiring if you own certain aggressive dog breeds or firearms, so there is that angle. Not all companies do that but some do.
I would not support the idea of firearms insurance having grown up with them, separate secure (hidden storage) of firearms and the ammunition was the order of the day and works well for the responsible. I submit that it would be the responsible owners that would secure said insurance whereas others would ignore a law requiring it. But that is the case with autos isn't it, that, and tags.
If any of you work in information security you are familiar with the APT (Advanced Persistent Threat), the attacker than never goes away. I will suggest that the similar mindset in humans, the highly motivated seeking to do harm, will find something beyond a firearm to do so and we have three examples: Mohammed Atta (and associates), Timothy McVey, and the Tsarnaev brothers.
But if it's a run of the mill school shooter or some toddler that picked up a gun and killed his sister, we're not talking about "highly motivated attackers", we're talking every day gun owners.
Good drivers buy car insurance and carry the losers, the same could go for gun owners.
Candidly, insurance cannot or will not prevent undesirable behaviors, only mitigate any financial impact resulting from those behaviors.
Firearms insurance won't address a home situation where the firearm and ammunition are not stored separately and securely such that a run-of-the-mill shooter or toddler can access them. Clearly the owner behaves in a less than responsible manner.
Auto insurance doesn't prevent a driver's behavior of looking at their phone while driving and clocking the car in front of them or the pedestrian crossing the street. And being honest, too many drive without auto insurance, or in my jurisdiction, the appropriate tag indicating proper registration.
If the conversation leads to highly restrictive firearms control in the general population, I submit those advocates need to do a deep dive into events in Northern Ireland from the 1960's to 1998. The highly motivated IRA were able to secure weaponry to fuel their terror campaign despite highly restrictive law intended to prevent such.
My point is that the one highly motivated to commit mayhem will find the means to do so.
Insurance isn't meant to deter or prevent. Only to make sure the victims receive compensation for their injuries or losses.
Insurance against what? Getting shot by your kid who could get to the gun? Having your arsenal stolen? For paying the lawyer when you are on trial for assault or murder?