@Mrs. Peel & @Cemeterys Gun Blob:
Apparently, you both are missing the bigger picture of what liability insurance is for. I never said, nor do I believe that requiring gun owners to have liability insurance would either prevent or reduce gun violence, let alone gun-related crimes. What it would do is provide the “price to pay” to gun violence victims and/or their family as a form of restitution or a form of compensation for their injury or loss. Of course, if the injury or death occurs as a result of the person committing a crime then the courts would relieve the insurance company from paying anything. This proposed insurance basically accepts that our society is not really going to succeed in eliminating gun violence, but is a vehicle to attempt to address the results in a compassionate and meaningful manner.
You make a good point in my semantics, that my choice of words was flawed. I should have omitted “steadily increasing”, as well as the word “mounting”. By removing those, my point is clearer and valid.
AVB-AMG your legal opinions and reasoning in your multiple posts are flawed on so many levels that I would need to write a book to respond. Suffice it to say, I disagree with you for some of the reasons already expressed by others.