Let's ask that same question in CCW terms - should CCW holders be required to carry liability insurance for accidental shootings? After all, it is an objective requirement. Is that an abridgement of your personal freedom?
Excellent question, worthy of reasoned discussion.
First, let's consider the advisability of having umbrella coverage from the standpoint of the gun owner (many people do have it).
Same thing as before--the likelihood of ever needing it is remote, but the consequence of needing it and not having it would be extremely severe. You stand to lose everything. This is probably not unlike a situation involving just about anything else you are insured for. In my view, not having it in today's litigious society would be foolhardy. Kinda like driving without insurance. By the way, it ain't costly.
So--should it be mandatory? Well, should the unlikely happen and you and/or your loved one be struck by a bullet, lawn dart, arrow, child from a trampoline, or golf ball, the consequences could be extremely
severe. Suppose that you are not
killed or permanently impaired--you could still require extensive cosmetic reconstructive surgery that would not be covered by your medical plan, and the covered expenses could consume most or all of your lifetime benefit limit. That's assuming you have health coverage to start with. And then there's loss of income.
But not to worry. The shooter (golfer, etc.) is liable.
But that won't do you a whit of good unless he is insured or has very deep pockets.
So--would it be a good idea from your
point of view for him
to have insurance? You betcha!
Again, good question, worth pondering.
By the way, a quick review of state laws will show that states that do require some classroom instruction, some proficiency training, and/or some evidence of safety instruction or proficiency instruction for granting CCW permits outnumber those that do not--handily.
I suggest that reasonable steps toward greater uniformity could lead to greater reciprocity.