Why Gun Control via the Insurance Vehicle Isn't So Easy

This morning, I submitted my thoughts below to the author of this article. Please read over his proposal that increased personal liability insurance coverage could serve as a better gun "control."

I enjoyed a good idea as much as the next person. this article on insuring firearm owners strikes me as a method of controlling both the number of citizens owning guns and the number of "accidents," or at the least "accidents" without compensation that occur each year.

I wonder though, how such a policy would prevent violent crime in the nations most notorious crime areas (New York, Atlanta, and Chicago). I feel that any kind of gun control policy will always fall short of reducing violent crime outside the deterrent effect that widespread proliferation insures. If you don't know who has a gun on the subway, you are less likely to pull yours out in the commission of a violent crime. Unfortunately, forcing insurance coverage seems more likely to increase the cost of owning (and operating) a weapon and decrease the numbers of gun owners in particularly high-risk areas. This all but eliminates the deterrent effect.

For my thoughts on gun control, a game theory analysis that affects my reasoning for widespread proliferation, and opinion of forced insurance coverage, see these posts:

Game Theory and VT Shootings
Healthcare is Messier Than You Think

Comments are welcome and encouraged.