When President Obama announced that the time had come to reopen the national dialogue on gun control, immediately following the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the result was as predictable as cloudy days in the Pacific Northwest. Both sides put on their boxing gloves and retreated to their respective corners. The naive and hopelessly optimistic audience waved their colors on the sidelines. Everyone held their breath awaiting the (also predictable) statement from the National Rifle Association. A few politicians ventured into the ring with tentative statements supporting one side or the other.

And then there was silence.

The stalemate that followed was a direct result of the collective fear of political suicide that accompanies issues such as gun control. Sure, individuals like former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords are forgiven their strong stance on the issue. She was shot in the head, after all – who can blame her for promoting gun control? Most legislators, however, approach the issue with great caution.

To find a solution for this impasse, we need look no further than the analogous health care debate. The sides had fiercely held their ideological banners high there as well. What transpired was the ultimate sell-out on the American people. This mockery of a law is so watered down that it does little to assist wage-earning uninsured Americans.

The reason for this is the proponents of health care reform, with genuinely good intentions, allowed the opponents of health care reform to leave the wolf in the hen house. In other words, they left the insurance companies in the mix. As long as these corporations, with their unabashed profit motive, are part of the health care system, we will never have affordable health care for the masses.

However, when it comes to gun control, maybe insurance companies could actually help solve the issue. Congress could pass a law requiring that to legally own a firearm, one must have insurance on the weapon. If that gun were ever involved in a crime, the insurance company would be liable for damages. This is a system we already use to insure automobiles, so the means are in place.

The insurance companies, not Congress (which clearly lack the intestinal fortitude for the task of controlling gun use) would decide who may and may not possess a gun. Let's say someone has a history of mental illness. Will the insurance company insure him? I doubt it; the financial risk is too great. Would they allow high-capacity magazines and assault weapons? We'd have to wait and see. It is interesting how when an issue is reduced to financial risk complex issues suddenly become simple and much clearer.

Now, if we can just figure out how to solve climate change with insurance companies, we'll really be on to something.