So that talking point about gun liability insurance not insuring illegal acts...

[better]

5. You all make good points. Thanks for that!

I do see the distinction between covering intentional violent crimes and covering something like a car wreck you didn't expect to get into even though you intended to drive while under the influence. I'm just not sure that it can't be tailored to work within a well-regulated (pardon the unintentional pun) market of insurers.

It's one thing for insurers to exclude damages arising from unlawful acts from eligibility for coverage by a homeowner's insurance policy. It's another thing entirely, though, for them to exclude such damages from policies that are required by federal law to cover even such damages.

Is there any reason why we cannot craft laws that require, as a condition of firearm ownership, liability insurance that does cover unlawful acts? Perhaps combined with a provision that in the event of an unlawful act, the insurer can then sue the insured and/or their estate to recoup damages paid in connection with said unlawful act? It seems like there should be some avenue here by which to accomplish this, in that insuring damages caused to others in the commission of an unlawful act is fundamentally different from insuring losses incurred by the perpetrator of an unlawful act.

I know there are some problems here, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around what all of them might be, but it really feels like it's a challenge that can be overcome, if we put enough thought and effort into it.

As to knowing who has them, that can at least start with universal background checks. It also would benefit tremendously from a registry, of which I am also strongly in favor, because background checks need to be recurring, not merely universal at point of purchase, and doing recurring background checks as effectively as we should demand necessitates an effective registry.