Zonkerbl wrote:I don't get the distinction. Don't want to argue over that point though, since you've given me a good idea. The one valid difference between guns and smoking is that, when you get cancer 20 years later, you have no idea whose smoke it was that gave you cancer. You correctly point out that it's much easier to identify who is responsible for a gun death. Thus the gun owners' insurance idea. I don't have a problem with requiring people to buy gun owners insurance, with the understanding that you have to pay a $7.5 million fine if the gun you purchase is used to kill someone (no matter whose fault it is). Let the market figure out how much that insurance should cost.
So you would have the option of paying for the insurance in a lump sum, say, $1,000 on purchase of the gun, or you could buy a policy where you pay $10 a month or whatever.
That's actually a much better solution than the pigouvian tax because there's less of an affordability issue.
I'd pondered about requiring gunowners insurance, as in car insurance, but bumped into a wall in figuring who would be the beneficiary for payout in case of gun misuse or accident.
Okay victim's families if the weapon was used in commission of crime, and suicide would negate the policy. But accident? Then too if you shoot a burglar and are convicted, or if you provoke a deadly encounter, his family wins an award. Suicide by homeowner. I dunno, seems there are any of a number of uncomfortable dead-ends in that labyrinth.
