An official military stance might be coming soon.
I’m really bummed with Fox’s reporting on Egypt.
Oh and by the way, Fox News.com > Fox News Channel. It’s not even a contest.
Al Jazeera English has much better coverage than all of the other Western news agencies in regards to this.
I’m not an American, so of course I generally try not to talk about the American notion of gun control. From an economist point of view, though, this proposal seems like a really reasonable way to create the right incentives for gun ownership, since it would encourage gun owners to do reasonable things to convince insurance companies that they were doing sensible things to reduce possible damages (like, say, taking safety courses, or not leaving a handgun in the glove compartment).
Do any Americans know how feasible this sort of legislation is?
I’m not really sure what the point of said legislation would be. It is already illegal and/or required to do those two things you cited in many states. If someone is actually considering committing a crime with a firearm, I fail to see how an insurance requirement would change anything. Not to mention that a majority of gun crimes in the United States are committed with illegally obtained firearms. I would also point out vehicle insurance laws in the US. In a majority of states it is illegal to drive without vehicle insurance, yet many still drive without it for a variety of reasons.
Instead of putting a burden on law-abiding gun owners we should focus instead on addressing the issues that cause gun violence and crime in general in the first place. Gun ownership doesn’t cause the violence (though it can make it easier), it is various societal and emotional issues. A man with psychological issues who chooses to kill his wife with a handgun will kill her with a knife. A teenager who lives in poverty that chooses to rob a corner store with a shotgun will rob it regardless.
Reevaluating our drug laws and welfare policies would improve the situation.