Massachusetts is going to consider, as part of a bill, requiring gun owners to have liability insurance on their guns. I mentioned this in this blog back on December 24, and now I can mention it again with an least a smidgen of hope.
I do find it unfortunate that Massachusetts will not vote on this as a stand-alone bill. The website masslive.com has an AP story this morning that says "The initiative is included in a gun control measure which would also change standards for gun licenses and outlaw large capacity magazines." Unfortunately this will prevent the issue from being judged on its own merits, (Which seems to be getting rarer and rarer in our political world of "buy-my-vote")
A different AP story in the Albany Times Union states "Craig Baenziger, who works at a gun- and
ammunition-seller in North Attleboro, Mass., called Northeast Trading Co., said
requiring liability insurance for guns makes little sense because it targets
people who buy the weapons legally instead of going after criminals who
illegally possess them." This is at least one more instance of gun advocates hiding behind criminals. I was brought up to believe that the criminal element does try to hide itself among the law-abiding people, but using the criminal element as a shield and an excuse for inaction is in itself just plain despicable. I suppose Mr. Baenziger is also against speed traps because they mostly just force good drivers to slow down and they miss most of the speeders anyway.
Remember: automobile insurance pays for the costs of damage and injury caused by owners and operators of vehicles. Gun insurance could and should do the same. What's fair is fair.