I have to laugh at your last question, though.

I spent the last half-hour poking holes in the insurance proposal. I know, I know, but the devil is in the details. There are a few problems, such as whether geographic location or income will be held against an applicant, and whether the lists of policy holders will be protected information.

Urban areas have more crime, so does that support or detract from risk? Catch 22: If you feel the need to have a gun for protection, does living in a place where you need protection make it harder to afford the gun?

Will there be a graduated rate of insurance based on ability to pay, or will only Dick Cheney be able to afford a shotgun?

We obviously don't want the lists of insured parties to be accessible to anyone unauthorized, because it would be a convenient shopping list for burglars. Gun safes are secure from random access and from amateurs, but not from pros. Sequestered and protected databases, please.

Also, the proposal to have people who don't own the guns but use them under supervised conditions, such as only at a range, take psych tests and be added as riders to the owner's policy is a little bit of a problem. People who attend events at clubs and ranges are frequently offered the opportunity to fire a rare, historical, or novelty weapon. (I shot a cannon once!) Such events are covered now under the liability insurance held by the organization that owns the club or range, without requiring a psychologist in residence.

Evaluating psych tests given to 12-year-olds requires expertise above and beyond the normal psychologist. And who pays for that? The insurance company, I hope.

The provision to kick some of the profits into a fund for mental health care and education is especially attractive.

The insurance companies might be powerful advocates for the NIH to be re-funded for firearms safety studies. They would be able to use that information.