Reply #41: Not Necessarily.

[Hoyt]

But if you are going to walk around with a gun, you gotta pay the price if someone takes it and uses it. Admittedly, holding the gun owner responsible for a thief's actions is probably a stretch on my part. But it is not a stretch to require insurance for the inevitable day when some law abiding permit holder plays Wild Bill and drops a few innocent bystanders in the process.

Point is, most folks don't need to tote and should leave their guns at home under lock and key. If somebody can't do that, then I like the idea of requiring them to insure the public against any damages. Of course, that's just one person's opinion and you are entitled to your opinion.

I will say that I have known a few folks who have a license/permit but have no business carrying a gun in public. And those people are the problem.

Like I've said before, I think most gun toters on DU are responsible and are not of great concern to me. Problem is, there are a lot of folks out there just waiting for an opportunity "to save the day" and will likely be a bit quick on the trigger when it's not necessary. Watching a few videos and shooting targets (or bottles off tree stumps with an assault weapon) is not proper training for a person to carry -- and perhaps use -- a gun in public.