Originally Posted by cutthemdown
Well you can sue people Houghtam. We have that mechanism already in place. We worked on a case where the insurance company we defended was being sued because a kid took a car and killed someone. So there is that. But obviously I don't feel the taxpayers should have to pay for it.
What if your kid got drunk, took the car and killed someone. Do you think you deserve to lose everything for that. Like be sued for 10 million lose house, everything and have to pay your salary for the rest of your life? Or do you think they should only be able to sue you if you let kid drive, if you didn't do what you needed to do to make sure drunk kid didn't take car.
Same with guns the facts will determine what the courts do. Thats how it works.
So let's say the person who owns the gun which shot your child is unable to afford your medical bills.
I would be in favor of compromise in this situation. We are required to insure our automobiles for that very reason. How about we just say that if you own a gun, you should be required to pay insurance on it for just those reasons. If it is determined you were negligent, you (your insurance) should be required to pay damages. If you lose your gun or have it stolen and it is used to commit a crime, you (your insurance) should be required to pay damages.
Gun "enthusiasts" like to bring up the comparison to automobiles all the time...you know, the old "more people are killed by automobiles than guns" routine? Great. We require people to insure their automobiles. Let's require them to insure their firearms, as well.