Gun Control & RKBA

with no damage or injury in Manila, Utah, tends to become national news, such things are very rare. Man bites dog is news, dog bites man isn't. It really sounds like a solution in search of a problem. My main objection isn't that the insurance would fill a necessary need, but simply to make money for insurance companies and to price gun ownership out of the reach of the average person. Think about it, 100 million people paying premiums for something like a hundred pay outs, if that? The latter is actually the main purpose. The idea first come from an insurance executive in Forbes magazine for that purpose. If the Constitution says you can't ban it, price it out of range. That was really the point behind the NFA transference tax. While self defense insurance is a good idea if you carry, the liability insurance has no public safety value.

What about cops? Cops are statistically more likely to hit the wrong person, have an ND, and are often less trained than many CCW holders.