“We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns," Maloney said in a statement. "The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise.”
Um, excuse me? Some states require car insurance, which licenses are a privilege, not a right. Second, and more brutal, gun fatalities among criminals have risen, but among legal use, gun fatalities have stayed steady.
May I ask when do you think a criminal will go out and get him/herself some gun insurance?
This is rife with stupidity.
More seriously, I wonder how this legislation could be enforced. Purchasing a weapon through a defined process which requires proof of insurance will cover only new purchases. Requiring the proof of insurance in order to allow the licensing, if such a requirement exists, of a weapon may cover more but is similar to closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. The article mentions a rather hefty fine for the possession of a weapon without proof of insurance, and perhaps when a weapon is fired and causes injury or death the shooter will also be expected to pay to somebody a sum of money, which insurance would make possible and which presumably would be difficult or impossible to pay without it.
However If we consider the practicalities, this means that a policing force, paid for primarily by taxes would need to employ time and resources in the checking for proof of insurance, issuing of fines, following up to ensure that payments are made, or that suitable alternative consequences due to those infringing on the law are received. How would they do that? Is there currently enough available resource in in the existing policing body to spare or would this just mean that additional budget would need to be given over to those bodies? If so, in order for a weapon owner to not be at as much of a risk of liability, more resource which could be used for other purposes or at some additional expense to taxpayers, will be used.
Just a thought, but is somebody in government sleeping with somebody in Insurance, since the insurance companies seem to be the biggest beneficiaries of this legislation, at the expense of the citizen?
Wilson If there was sufficient, common sense, or rather if common sense were a factor, these debates would never be needed. At what point do you suppose that people will realize that being allowed to own weapons in order not to be reamed by government, while being reamed by government for the right, defeats the purpose. The citizen has already lost.
I think it may also be true that those criminal enough to use a weapon for unlawful gain probably wouldn't by affected by this legislation.