I'm interested in the 'Strict Liability' argument. With a required insurance policy covering it.
Meaning, if you are the owner of record of a firearm then a portion of any harm caused by that gun falls on the owner of record.
"Who owns the gun?".....need be among the first questions asked in a gun-violence incident. And that 'owner' automatically has a share of the liability.
Yes, that means if your 17yr old takes the gun from your bedside nightstand and shoots his football rival.....YOU are liable to a degree determined by statute or jury. Same goes, if some vandal steals it from under your pick-up seat while you stop for a brewski.
It also means every friggin' gun in America has an owner-of-record. And that OOR is on the hook for the harm that gun may cause.
In that proposal, we would expect gun ownership to be elevated to a much higher level of responsibility than it currently is. Meaning, folks will go to greater lengths to secure their weapons, and it means that private enterprise insurance companies will apply their for-profit standards on who they insure and who they won't...and at what cost.
Owning a gun has responsibilities.....and those responsibilities come with societal costs. And personal liability.