@LauraTXNM , a rough analogy to the sort of insurance I have in mind is PIP (Personal Injury Protection) insurance, which is a mandatory extension of car insurance in many states. It covers medical expenses and, in many cases, lost wages as the result of injuries suffered in a car accident. It is sometimes called "no-fault" because it is agnostic of who is at fault in the accident.
As applied to guns, the idea is for a gun owner to register and insure his guns, with the insurance available to pay the medical bills and lost wages of a victim of violence committed while using an insured gun. The insurance would pay off if the act of violence occurs while the gun is covered by the insurance - and such coverage would remain in force until such time as the gun's ownership is lawfully transferred, the gun is lawfully disposed of, or the gun is reported stolen to the police. The incentive is therefore in place for a gun owner to keep weapons secured from unauthorized use, to effect only "official" and traceable dispositions of the guns he owns (that is, not selling the thing out of the back of a truck but rather using a broker that upon resale will run the requisite background checks), and to promptly report stolen guns. Otherwise, his insurance policy will pay off and his premiums will go up.
The idea isn't to "cast gun owners in a bad light" or to make it too expensive for them to afford to defend themselves. Rather, the idea is to encourage gun owners to be responsible, to secure their guns against unauthorized use (like Adam Lanza taking his mom's guns), to effect only lawful transfers, and to report stolen weapons. Does anyone here really think that demanding such responsibility from gunowners is unreasonable?
Well, wrong. "No Fault insurance" means if I get in a wreck, regardless of who is at fault, my insurance company pays for my problems, and their insurance company pays for theirs. My insurance company reimburses me for my losses (would buy me another gun), their insurance company pays for their losses (?). The "No-Fault" model does not work unless everyone is carrying "no-fault" insurance. You want the responsible, compliant, gun owners to pick up the tab for the acts of criminals and nutcases who aren't likely to comply, anyway.
(you might recognize this phrase)
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without Due Process of Law."
Those who have committed no crime would be thus deprived, regardless, and on a per firearm, not even just a per person basis, essentially penalizing an object for the actions of humans, a theme we have already seen used in "Civil Asset Forfeiture" enabling passers by to be looted by LEOs at will.
As for even implying that the vast majority of gunowners aren't responsible or would for a New York Second permit unauthorized use of their firearms, you can crawl into the warm dark orifice that produced that comment and rot, for all I care. It will likely do nothing to improve the smell.
What you have outlined is a joke. If the only people covered would be those injured with an insured gun, would that gun remain insured if stolen and wielded by someone else?
If someone steals my car and runs over a bunch of schoolchildren crossing the street, does my insurance company have to pay out? (No, the insurance is not in effect for criminal acts, nor acts of war, declared or undeclared, and it would be no different with firearms, and would not cover the unauthorized use of the vehicle).
With that in mind, would this provide the deep running trough for lawyers to gobble contingency fees from? Would the insurance companies pay the bills? Nope, and Nope. That isn't the way that works. Would the owner be found liable, even if the safe he had them in had been breached? Maybe, in courts where not being baked a cake wins the lawsuit lotto.
But the responsibility for the actions of the perpetrator should belong solely with the perpetrator. Contributing factors may be noted and addressed, but I don't know any gun owners who want their guns stolen or used by others they don't even know in wholesale slaughter. But maybe some creative shyster can sue the iron mines which mined the iron which was made into steel which was made into a firearm which was sold to a dealer which was purchased legally which was stolen and used in a crime, or maybe y'all can go back to focusing on the criminals and quit making excuses for them.
Adam Lanza killed his mother and then proceeded to make off with the (rest of the) guns. She had a problem with reporting the theft--she was too dead to do so. To imply that she was OK with any of that is simply beyond the pale, even for you.
