Say mandatory 10% of max jail time for any seller/manufacturer

(in a way patterened after how lottery dealers are giving a reward for selling the winning ticket, this is the reverse).

As long as they follow the law, then what crime can they be charged with?
I agree with the insurance proposal, which Rep. Maloney is introducing in the House, but not your suggestion that seller/manufacturer should be charged just because someone used their product in a crime.

Just tell us on what basis can they be charged?

It's been nice conversing with your circular arguments, however our conversation is through.

you can't back up your statement with reason.
Thank you and have a good day.

as far as I know. Interesting idea though.

Without laws requiring such insurance, most drivers would carry none.

Before it would make sense to most people you would have to sell the idea that a gun owner who didn't pull the trigger is liable for how the gun was used.

We already see negligence cases around guns left where children find them. Nothing new here.

checking on the buyer, or if he gave it to his son as a right of passage but his son was acting like a big shot and killed another kid, etc. -- then the original gun owner is partly responsible and should pay.

I know gun owners don't want to take on any responsibility. But they keep telling us they are responsible -- Now, it's time to prove it.

I would hazard a guess that the Secret Service already knows who these assholes are and will shortly receive a very unpleasant visit from them.

The Koch brothers and wingnuts want a civil war to install fascist rule. It's about time we took them as seriously they are in word and deed. They are dismantling this nation state by state with their actions.

Not to panic, but be aware there are very hostile elements on the loose. This comes from Grover Nordquist and his mantra of 'I want the federal government small enough to be drowned in a bathtub' funded by the Koches and foreign interests to break the country into pieces, as intended in the 1860s.

They are not kidding, and they've nearly defunded the government to the point where it can bearly defend us much less itself - or so it would appear from the internets, LOL...

...than the insured party.

The suggestion is trite and naive.

and would give its members a discount. Discounts would also be offered if the member had proof of firearm safety training and/or a concealed weapons permit. While you suffer from paranoia of those who legally carry concealed, statistics prove that as a group they are far more responsible than any other group of gun owners.

NRA membership would jump from 4.5 million to 60 million members overnight.

edited to add

The NRA with only 4.5 members is a formidable foe. The last thing that any true supporter of gun control would wish to see is a dramatic increase in NRA membership or increased profit which would fund lobbyists at the state and nation level.

As far as NRA offering insurance, I'd love to see the jury awards when it's known the right wing bigots at the NRA are covering the Zimmermans, Cheneys, son of NRA Prez who shot a motorist in road rage, the dad who gives his son "Lanza" guns, etc.

Further debate on the subject of the level of gun owners and how responsible certain groups of gun owners are is more appropriate in the other gun forum.

My point is that that requiring all gun owners to have insurance on their firearms may seem like a good idea on the surface but may have unintended consequences for gun control advocates as it may increase membership in the NRA.

Not only would the NRA make money from the increased membership and by selling insurance to gun owners but it would also make money from gun safety and concealed carry classes which many gun owners would take in order to get a discount on their insurance.

As a gun owner I really don't have any problem with obtaining liability insurance for my firearms as long as the policy was for me and not for each of my firearms. I feel the cost would be reasonable.