We tax a gallon of gasoline to build and maintain roads and bridges

[freshwest]

48. The owner of the gun, just like the owner of a car. Inanimate objects can't sign contracts. Not yet.

A person possesses something, they are responsible for it. Your car is insured for theft - likewise, if a person's gun is insured for theft and it's stolen to commit a crime, the owner's insurance takes care of that.

An owner can miminize their premium by documenting the status and safety of their storage, proving that their operation of the gun will be done legally, etc.

The same applies to a car which I'm using as an example, since if a car is improperly maintained, recklessly handled, or used in a malicious manner in order to hurt someone, that's a crime. It's called in some places vehicular homocide and a person can go to prison for it. Vehicles have a destructive ability if not used in the correct way.

Back to the house, if a tree on your property falls onto another person's car or house, you are liable. If your gun accidentally shoots someone in the same fashion, or a family member, the medical and other costs are borne by the insured.

I'm sure it sounds strange, but why not take the same level of care in licensing, registration,. proof of ownership, training as a car when one is using something that is so dangerous?

Take the drama out of this, just like with pollution - stop it at the source. Be responsible for what one does in every way possible. As far as the argument criminals don't carry insurance for their acts, well, just tack that onto the rest of what they did.

A gun is a thing that people buy. It's a financial cost to them and society at large. That includes whoever gets shot. I am guessing some people have homeowner's policies that cover possessions, both at home and on the road, like laptops and other goods.

So of course it's the owner - why shouldn't the owner of the gun be responsible for all that might occur, such as with vehicles, or construction, or the operation of a business?

Doctors carry malpractice that goes up with complaints from their own mistakes. I'm just suggesting this to be less punitive in controlling gun use and bet that people will think about the entirety of gun ownership - not just the way it makes them feel, whatever the gun dealer told them, but the relationships between the gun owner and the society at large.

This is what gun control is about. Not ending an industry, but narrowing down possession and operation of firearms. Less spur of the moment purchasing and actions with a gun. We see these stories of people shooting in public or at home, of children getting killed.

In each of those situations, there should have been a mandatory legal provision for insurance at the point of sale. Just like a car. You go to buy a car, you have to show insurance before they let you take it away. I understand the cash value is not the same, but guns don't have another purpose but killing. So they should be put in the hands of trustworty people.

I am thinking that the guys who spout off about good guys with guns should put their money where their mouth is - be in charge of what happens from start to finish, don't just cry and say 'I didn't mean to shoot him!'

If such a level of responsibility was required, a constant amount of money put out monthly, they would take their ownership more seriously. If they can't pay for the damage they might do, they should not own a gun.

JMHO.