Mass Stupidity – Gun Insurance
Back in January, I noted that a Massachusetts lawmaker had proposed a bill to require $250,000 in insurance on each handgun owned against:
“any harm or damage that might arise out of the use of each weapon”
I declined to blog about it at the time because it failed miserably, but now it has been scheduled for a hearing and is once again relevant.
To get to my points, this is interesting on a couple of levels. First, no one should need to carry insurance to exercise an individual right. Second, it’s not likely to help anything, because those who frequently commit gun crimes are not likely to carry insurance on the weapon in question anyways. The only effect it would have is to prohibit some people from owning a firearm (which I will note again, is an individual right) because they can’t afford the insurance.
Unlike cars, there is nothing inherently dangerous about a gun. If used properly there is, for all practical purposes no danger to anyone. Since this will have no effect on criminals (the stated purpose of the bill) I’ll focus on the only intelligent reason something like this could be proposed: to protect from an others negligence. It is entirely reasonable to say that people should carry insurance against their own negligence. However if you are going to limit it just to guns, its very likely unconstitutional, just like requiring someone to pass a test or pay a tax to vote.
So I propose that if Mass insists on doing this, that they should require every individual over the age of 14 to carry insurance in the amount of $250,000 against, what nonsense was it? Oh yes:
“any harm or damage that might arise out of the
use of each weaponfact that you exist”
I made some improvements to make it “legal”.
This is much more sensible since there are many many many more people injured or killed and property damaged by peoples negligence without guns, than there are with guns. Furthermore it isn’t attached to a right, you simply can’t require people to do things like this as a condition of exercising a constitutional right. So if we are going to do something that will address peoples stupidity, punish the poorer people by design and grow government to yet another record level, we might as well go balls deep on it.
I wonder how many liberals would be for this kind of stupidity control, rather than gun control. That’s the thing they should really try to control if they are going to do it.