For anyone not already aware, this would constitute a de facto ban on firearm ownership. While there are some insurers for self-defense, and some insurers for accidents, there are no insurers for "anything that results from gun use" because no one insures wilful, non-defensive gun use. E.g. murdering someone, discharging a firearm into the air, brandishing, etc are all covered by precisely zero insurers.
For anyone not already aware, this would constitute a de facto ban on firearm ownership. While there are some insurers for *self-defense*, and some insurers for *accidents*, there are no insurers for *"anything that results from gun use"* because no one insures wilful, non-defensive gun use. E.g. murdering someone, discharging a firearm into the air, brandishing, etc are all covered by precisely zero insurers.
(post is archived)