Stealing an idea I heard in an MSNBC interview the other day - a Democratic strategist (whose name I've lost track of) suggested that, since we require automobiles to have insurance, why shouldn't possession of guns call for the same thing?
Automobiles require liability insurance in case the driver brings harm to others through his actions. The insurance industry evaluates risk on an individual basis, as per someone's history and medical conditions, among other things. The cost of the insurance for a given driver can be prohibitive if that person is considered too high a risk.
When I substitute "guns" for "automobiles", and "gun owner" for "driver" in that paragraph, it still sounds pretty sensible. When we factor in mental illness as part of the insurance cost criteria, or when we consider the liability potential for ownership of an assault weapon, it's easy to imagine a self-regulating marketplace that brings some sanity to the debate.
As conservatives will suggest, let's put our faith in free markets.
No comments:
Post a Comment