gun violence control through mandatory liability insurance and taxation - from Forbes

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

93. so you don't get it - allow me to explain

Requiring mandatory insurance makes people more accountable.

It would require that people report the guns they have to their insurance company, it would require they report them stolen or missing - an issue that just came up in the arrest of the woman who bought several guns used by the felon in New York who started houses on fire and then shot four firefighters, killing two and injuring two of them.

It would limit straw purchases which is reputed to be one of the ways in which criminals get guns illegally; remember that all guns start out as legal guns. It could also be used to reinforce legislation which is likely coming in the next month that would toughen up other ways that guns get into the hands of prohibited people. If you sell or give a gun to someone who cannot legally own a gun, because they are nuts or a felon or a drug user or a minor or an illegal immigrant, then there is a record if that gun is used in a crime of when you had it, and when you did not, helping track firearms that get into illegal hands.

Probably the most useful aspect would be that insurance companies could require proof that you are yourself a stable person, like some kind of mental health testing, they could limit arsenals of weapons by people who do things like James Holmes by having policy limits on quantities, and they could require proof of safe and secure storage -- which would have prevented a couple of deaths of children in Minneapolis this year in the Hmong community, where concealed carry permittees stashed guns around the house in places where there were children, no trigger locks, no secure storage.

It could be used to limit who buys ammunition; guns without ammo don't kill or injure people.

But if you're not interested in a discussion of socio-economics - don't participate in one. To use a phrase, no one is holding a gun to your head.