Require liability insurance for firearms

Liability insurance for firearms

‘Progress is possible’ on gun control legislation, some lawmakers say | May 30

My brother, a lawyer, made a suggestion that could reduce gun violence: pass a federal law requiring liability insurance on all firearms from the manufacturer’s perspective, just like they do on automobiles. No firearm can be sold without the buyer having liability insurance. Anyone who gets shot (or their survivors) could demand the gun’s serial number and file a claim. It would bring billions to the insurance industry. They would no doubt be happy to set this up. The NRA would probably oppose it, but who would you bet on? The NRA or the insurance industry?

This would bring some relief to victims of crime and give police another weapon in the war on crime. A Montana farmer with two shotguns in a safe would pay minimal premiums. A career criminal or even an angry and unstable citizen would find it much more difficult, if not impossible, to acquire a firearm.

Pete Wilford, Holiday

Reasonable rules

After Uvalde, we should agree on these 3 things to stem gun violence against children | Chronicle, June 2

Politicians and civic leaders are calling for “something must be done” to reduce gun violence in this country. The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in his landmark Heller opinion to affirm the constitutional right to bear arms, also reinforced the need for regulations to ensure safety. We already have the process in place. Owning and using a firearm should be like owning and using a motor vehicle. Operators must be licensed after passing a minimum requirements test. Firearms must be registered. Passive and active safety mechanisms must be installed. Liability and personal injury insurance should be required. The oft-repeated argument that any new regulations will lead to “weapons being taken away” is no more valid than “your car will be taken away from you”.

Paul Ford, palm port

The killer car analogy

Don’t punish the law-abiding | Letter, May 24

A letter writer explains gun control as when a person intentionally kills a person with a car and then the government wants to take all the cars away. It’s not a good analogy. A closer analogy would be if the car used by the assailant was a car specifically designed to kill large numbers of people on the road, and designed to do so faster than any other car on the road, and that particular car is marketed for people who fantasize about killing a lot of people very quickly, and comes with extra attachments that allow it to continuously kill a lot of people without stopping to refuel, and whoever owns this car, the possess specifically for this purpose. What most of us who are sane want is just to ban that particular car. You can still keep your SUVs, luxury vehicles, compact vehicles, electric vehicles and all those vehicles that are only designed to transport people from one destination to another. Absolutely no one needs a specially designed car to kill large numbers of people in seconds.

Spend your days with Hayes

Subscribe to our free newsletter Stephinitely

Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share her thoughts, feelings and fun stuff with you every Monday.

You are all registered!

Want more of our free weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s start.

Explore all your options

Ed Brown, Tarpon Springs

Private schools, private money

Making sense of possible tax hikes | June 1

Want a quick fix to property tax and public school money problems? Stop giving state dollars to private school vouchers and charter schools. My parents paid their taxes and sent four children to the parish school. It was their choice. The defunding of traditional public education has continued since the 1990s through voucher and charter school programs. People were outraged by the defunding of the police, but tolerated the defunding of public education.

Terrence S. Callahan, crystal beach

Solve climate change

Congress Should Stop Ignoring Our Climate Crisis (Again) | Chronicle, May 31

I agree with the tragedy of chronic inertia in the face of climate change. How do you get 8 billion people pulling on the oars? First of all, keep hope. The doomsday messages have been false and have generated paralysis. Second, be fair. One third of the world cannot leave two thirds behind. Third, be rich. Prosperity builds the will and ability to solve problems that won’t be at the top of anyone’s list. Also, wealthy societies suffer much less from the effects of too slow a cure. Fourth, be open-minded. Big problems rarely lend themselves to narrow, static solution sets. All the lithium mined annually on the entire planet is roughly enough to make about a million electric vehicles, and the United States has one mine.

Our approach to climate change breaks these four rules. I don’t imply shyness. On the contrary, I believe that the United States should commit to electrifying the world by manufacturing and exporting state-of-the-art nuclear reactors (opponents cite concerns associated with technologies that are two or three generations old). I also support an international agreement on consumer-neutral emissions taxes, with revenues directed to research and development of new approaches (including geo-engineering which may be the best hope for the worst, the oceans ).

Pat Byrne, Largo