link: The first and the one that already in the public eye is to adopt compulsory liability insurance for gun owners who are registered in particular states. This is the plan that is being offered in state legislatures.
I'd be happy for a plan for 'non gun owners' now that I no longer own any. You could qualify if you sold all your guns at a buyback, even had you owned 30 guns the previous 30 years! (called a 'pre-existing condition by some). It's not like cigarette smoking, quit & reduce the risks immediately rather than have lingering affects. (I refer mainly to higher risks among young families with young children btw, tho older gunowners more at suicide risk statistically).
first steps of four: Step 0 – Adopt laws clarifying the legal liability of shooters and gun owners. This is needed for itself and for the effectiveness of liability insurance.
Step 1 – Liability insurance for guns. Because this depends on fault by gun owners and the tort law system, it gives limited protection to victims.
I didn't see anything about the 'number' of guns owned or in the household. I think this plays a big part, the more guns in the house the more likely the chance of using one inappropriately or having it misplaced in the home, stolen etc (esp for young families).. Could create a level system, like 1 or 2 guns = lowest rates, 3 to 9, 10 - 19, 20 or more (arsenality).
Or caliber or type, like assault rifle insurance? 25% added premium?
Then states with child access prevention laws (CAP laws) qualify for lower rates. Texas even has one iirc (or is it florida or both), one of the few gc laws it does have.
Problems, how to get past gunowners refusing to admit to being one, or refusing how many they own. Claiming 2ndA holy 'rights' of course, genuflecting at the same time.
link: But, as the proportion of gun injuries from legally possessed guns is going up due to a downward trend of crime in general and a greatly increased spread of legal guns, it would have a substantial value.
This is tricky to follow; evidently this does not nec mean gun injuries are going up, just that the proportion of legal gun owners being involved in gun injury shootings is increasing, due to declining violent crime. Declining gun murder deaths due to better hospital experience treating gunshot wounds would also not factor in much, since murder is only about 1% of total violent crime (robbery, aggr asslt, rape).
The ins requirement for ccw holders a must I think. Will it end up in supreme court?
= new reply since forum marked as read