Of Magnums

If I want to legally operate a Dodge magnum, I need a license that requires a training class and an exam. The same is true in many states -- to the chagrin of gun advocates -- to legally operate a Colt magnum.

When I take my Dodge magnum for a drive, it needs a license plate, something that uniquely identifies my magnum from all others in case of wrong doing or accident. We can do the same for the Colt magnum, requiring etchings in the barrel that uniquely identifies the source of any recovered bullet. Yet this measure -- the Ammunition Accountability Act -- is being fought by gun advocates.

To put my Dodge magnum on the road, I need insurance in case I am at fault in an accident or in case my car gets stolen. This is a suggestion I've not yet heard, but want to put forward. Why shouldn't gun owners also have to carry insurance? The costs of gun related accidents and crimes are staggeringly high and the damage from stolen guns is extremely unfortunate. Why shouldn't they be responsible for covering at least part of those losses that come from police investigations and trials? Why shouldn't victims have a better chance at some sort of remuneration for their injuries and deaths of loved ones? Gun owners should have to carry insurance against indemnity. Just because I have the right to drive does not mean that I should not be required to be able to cover damage done by my driving. Similarly, just because one has the right to bear arms does not mean that they should not be required to be able to cover damage done by their guns.