A House Democrat plans to introduce a bill that would hit AR-15's with a 1,000% tax -- and

[waterwatcher123]

98. It is about insuring individuals for damages caused by guns (including unintentional damages).

The point is to make it less attractive to own certain types of weapons (assault weapons). You are right that no insurance company would purposely make a policy that covers illegal acts. But, the insurance requirement could reduce the likelihood that such acts are committed in the first place (no insurance could be the lever to make it impossible to purchase assault weapons, high capacity magazines, certain accessories and ammo, and to insure existing owners are properly trained and store their weapons safely).

There should be a victim's compensation fund supported by gun owners and companies as well. These shooters tend not to survive and most do not have the means to pay for what ends up being incredibly expensive medical and mental care for the victims and their families. Why should the victims, the victims families and society be responsible for the costs of this gun violence? This cost should fall on the gun companies and individuals who want such weapons.