This is a masterful writing about how Americans love guns more than the lives of innocent men, women and children who are massacred every day in mass shootings.

We know that doing nothing only leads to more mass murders.  
Other countries have significantly less gun murders.

Just like auto, make it mandatory for anyone purchasing a gun to take out a liability insurance for $10 million, $2,500 a month premium!    Let us see how many will buy.   Every mass shooting, the person was not a "criminal" but someone who bought it legally

It is so easy to distort the other side and make any argument simple, or rather simplistic.

You have no solution but comparisons.   The US has the highest number of homicides and mass shootings involving guns and assault weapons than any other "civilized" country in the world.     Don't compare gun deaths from crime with something like what happened in Tuscon, Aurora, Oak Creek, Newtown, Military yards.    These are not crimes but senseless killing of innocent men, women and children by people using  "guns".

We are very good at explaining things away that are crucial for the welfare of the society. We are in an era without rational thinking from judges, and politician who are all beholden one type or another of their benefactors.  

I would really, really like to here how you think that "liability insurance" will prevent a single death.

I'm listening.....

They come up with the craziest ideas that would have no impact. Do they really think a bad guy will purchase the insurance? Will he need to, to even get the gun in the first place? Will the black market take Geico? VISA?  lol

Spell it out son. What law would Makwa pass to stop the mass shootings? Well????

If we don't look at the root cause and it's not the weapon used but why these shooters are doing this it will be impossible to even slow down much less stop. If you think for one second that they wouldn't have done something else (bomb, driving into a crowded sidewalk, arson, knives or poison) had a gun not been available you are deluded.  
     You want to compair gun deaths in the US to the rest of the civilized world you can't use suicides. Japan has a suicide rate more than twice ours and a complete fun ban. How could that be? Russia and Mexico have murder rates double ours if I remember correctly and basically total gun bans. How can this be??  
       The ONLY gun law that would work is a total ban here, including confiscation. If you add carrying liability ins to gun ownership and the cost is crazy you ll see gun sales go through the roof of legal lawabidding gun owners selling their firearms to anyone who would buy them. I bet you d see a 25% increase in gun crime within year. Confiscation won't happen; you can't find enough cops or military personal to do it and the deaths it would cause would make our current gun deaths look like a bird on a radar screen next to a jumbo jet. I could see 500,000 dying between trying to protect their rights and LE trying to take their firearms.  
       The truth is maybe our courts and politicians should enforce the gun laws already on the books (less then 10% of firearms escalators are prosecuted, violent life time offenders serve less then 1/2 their sentences in many cases). If mental health reporting and the police did their jobs over half of the mass shootings in the past 6 yrs would have never happened. In fact almost everyone of the mass shooters involved was being treated either directly by a phsycholigist or with drugs.  
        If we don't fix our culture nothing will change. The media making myrters and national names out of the killers doesn't help. Do you really think the parents of newtown want 10 million from Lanza s insurance policy?? Besides with the average number of shootings and firearms nation wide I d bet an insurance policy for liability would only run $100 a yr for legal responsible gun owners and insurance companies would be making a killing at that price. Suicides by the policy holder would obviously be exempt, stolen firearms would be as well I would figure.  
         

It may have the highest number of homicides, but you ignore the point.  If other countries like Switzerland have more guns, maybe it isn't the number of guns, but something else.

So your solution is to create a boondoggle for the insurance companies in the neighborhood of 250 BILLION dollars a month???

The only people who would not care about the insurance premium would be the very people you are talking about, the people who would only have to pay the premium for a single month because they know that before the first month is over that they will either be dead or in prison.

Why don't you just be honest, your real "solution" would be to take the guns away from every honest, law abiding citizen so the only guns remaining would be in the hands of law enforcement and criminals.

You just regurgitate what someone else says.  

The average per capita income of a typical American family in blue states is around $49,000 and $37,000 in a red states and further down in the South according to Southern Poverty Law Center.    

Rights should come with responsibility.     If my car hits another and the other driver is injured there is an insurance policy that compensates the other injured driver.

Gun laws in States, very strict or liberal is not the answer and will not work and is not working.     90% of guns used to commit crimes in NYC comes from Virginia.    Yes CA has strict gun laws but people can always bring guns from NV.

If you understand the primary intent of an object and a secondary intent you would not be making such a stupid statement.

In fact typical death payouts are 1 million or less. What makes a firearm death worth 100 million and medical malpractice, drunk driving, an assault with any other weapon worth so much more?
       Guns are used by far more often for self defense, hunting and sport shooting then killing so the premise that the only use for them is killing is totally misplaced.  

Look at your liability policy - there is an exclusion for "assault and battery."  The most coverage you could get would be for an accidental discharge.

Insurance will be higher in states where there are more guns and gun deaths. Minimum should be all the medical cost if someone is injured and $ 3 to 5 million if someone is dead or if the victim is the sole breadwinner, insurance pays for the families expenses for rest of their natural lives.

Was there any kinder garden kids among the stabbed.

The British is coming to take America again so you need guns to raise the militia, right?

Need a good guys with guns to kill bad guys with guns.

The second amendment was written to provide the population in general a defense again a tyrannical government. EVERY region in the world has been repressed by a tyrannical government. If you believe it can't happen here, ask native americans. It has happened in areas all around the world and could happen here again. Also I believe in my right to self defense of my home. Some people live miles from the nearest police station and keep firearms for defense.  
      I m a middle age white man and have always voted democratic.
      And yes knives were an offensive weapon as much as they were a tool when first invented.  

1700 people per yr are murdered with knives. Roughly 10% are or were under 18 depending on the yr.  
      Kinder garden kids in school? I don't know. How many? How many at home by their parents last yr?  
      China has a complete firearms ban and has had school killings resulting in over 20 deaths more then twice in the past 4 yrs.  
       http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

Also wrongful death takes into account the earning potential of the victim. Most homicide victims are previously convicted criminals, most felons, 70% if I remember correctly... so 3-5million is probably way overpaying. Also children like it or not are usually considered to be worth less than an adult with a family, so 3-5million is wrong here as well.  
      Why not just make every citizen carry liability? Not just for guns but anything they could hurt someone with... Like if you have knives in your home, more money, bats, more money, hammers, more money, prescription drugs, more money, guns, more money... Why limit it to just guns. Seems to be discriminatory to me... leaving anyone hurt by something else to just having to sue the attacker in civil court.

I never mentioned the NRA or a good guy with a gun. I said that guns are the tool being used but not the root cause.  
        If you didn't understand my post I could explain it using small words and single sentences instead of paragraphs.

Virtually every post you've made is riddled with inaccuracies or lies.

You have a right to own a gun.  But if you use them carelessly, the Constitution does not protect you from being sued.

Why just make liability coverage attach to them? Also intentional misuse usually voids your insurance policy anyway... Should people who see a doctor for mental issues be required to carry insurance on themselves? Because let's face it by and large ALL of these mass shooters were treated for mental issues. How about people prescribed dangerous drugs? Oxy, adderal, anything given for depression, anything that could be sold illegally for a profit? Far more people are hurt by prescription drugs that are sold on the black market then firearms... Where do you draw a line?  

i mean, why allow yourself to be tethered to something as intractable as true and false, fact or fiction.

Do you think we have illegal cars sold in this country that can be driven without auto insurance?   Sooner or later, the driver will be pulled over and the vehicle impounded.

But the three shot would get paid? Can't you see the issue here?  

Bottom line my friend: