Of all the ideas I’ve heard to curb gun violence, one of most intriguing is also one of the least discussed.
It comes my way from a hyper-smart retired Navy commander who calls occasionally with suggestions. His latest: Require gun owners to carry liability insurance for the firearms they own.
Comments
That will make money for insurance companies, lawyers. Jobs for new state agencies to oversee, but mostly be an inconvenience and expense on law abiding citizens. Just as criminals get their weapons illegally, they won't buy insurance. There are many people in Ma that do not have car insurance or a license and still drive.
The Aurora incident was done by someone who followed all the laws, in Newtown, the weapon owner followed all the laws, so exactly how would this stop these type of incidents?
If you think the insurance companies will take the burden of weeding out these unfit to posses a weapon, that won't work. First, because we have all learned recently there is no reliable way to identify someone who is unstable and should not be insured. Second, everyone is guaranteed due process, and can present their case to the courts.
blah, blah, blah, it won't work. Nothing will work. Don't try anything. Don't have any new ideas. Approach the world with nothing new and creative to solve problems. Just load up your gun and fire, right?? blah, blah, blah...only the bad guys wll have guns...blah, blah, blah.....we have NO ALTERNATIVE but to keep thing status quo and let gun fools kill us and our kids. GET OUT OF OUR WAY....THE ADULTS ARE GOING TO MAKE CHANGES, AND ALL THE CAMOFALGE, WAR PAINT, AND TATOES YOU PUT ON YOUR BODY IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THAT!! NOW SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!!
This comment has been removed.
A BRILLIANT IDEA!!!!!!!! I LOVE IT!!!! Vice President Biden......are you listening??? (I'm going to write directly to him anyways, in case he's not). Thanks, Scott
I am so bloody tired of this silly argument and the extremes with which it is presented. No one is taking my hunting weapons. I don't hunt anymore but I still have them and the govt. doesn't want them. The govt. also didn't give me my M-16 to take home in 69 for home defense. Didn't even offer to sell it to me and I wouldn't have bought the piece of junk. Now the M-79 I carried on occassion would have been nice, but lousy for deer hunting. If you want to play Rambo join the military. Want to collect guns then this is a great idea. It would force people to ensure the security of their weapons. But frankly I see no purpose of having a weapon built for only one purpose to be easily obtainable in the civilian market.
Not to wax to philosophical but I read so many comments by folks talking about self defense and taking some guy out and they talk about it so easily. It strikes me they have no recognition of what it does to you inside both mentally and spiritually. Whether that person is a legitimate combat enemy or simply a burgler. When you see what you have done most of us are seldom ever the same again. Soldiers will on the outside talk about combat in very objective terms, but inside there is a lot more going on then people realize. When you fondle that AR-15 I'd suggest thinking long and hard about its purpose in life and yours.
Thank you for such informed input. I suspect there are a lot of guys like you out there, and I would just ask that you make yourselves heard in Washington. Thanks again.
it won't solve the problem but it will certainly lessen it.
Great idea but as an insurance agent I will tell you the insurance will be cost prohibitive if even available.
Well I'm not an insurance agent but I question whether the insurance will be cost prohibitive even if available. I have a standard homeowner's hazard insurance policy that costs me about $4,000 a year. I have a $5 million umbrella liability policy that costs me about $500 a year. Massacres by deranged people with assault weapons are horrible, and get a lot of news coverage, but statistically they don't actually happen very often although once is too many. So, figure that 500 innocent people are killed every year with assault weapons, and I doubt it's that high, at a payout of $2 million per victim. That's $1 billion paid out per year. The total number of assault weapons out there is, I don't know, say 25 million. Just a guess. That's $40 per gun per year just to cover the payout. So, if the insurance company charges $100 per gun per year, that's pretty profitable business for the insurance company, isn't it? And is $100 per year enough to discourage a gun enthusiast (a/k/a gun nut) from pursuing his passion? I think not. BTW, I've never owned a gun and have little interest in ever owning a gun but I live in a sleepy little hamlet where nothing much ever happens, which is just the way I like it.
NRA already sells liability insurance. So it can't be completely cost prohibitive.
For example: http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/members.htm
I favor universal gun ownership. And I also LIKE this idea of insurance. There was a case the other day in Ohio. Someone with a concealed-carried permit had driven home with his 2-year old son. A mugger with a gun got the drop on him. The dad got between himself and the mugger and gave him his money. Then he reached again as the mugger was retreating. The mugger turned around and pointed his gun at the dad, and the dad legally shot him. Now -- suppose the dad had missed and had struck an innocent bystander by mistake? Liability insurance would be a GREAT way to remedy the damage done to the innocent bystander. Same thing with hunters who accidentally shoot other hunters.
Awesome that a decent person shot a degenerate...
world would be a better place if the liberals/democrats spent more effort helping the decent folk vs decrying the rights of the degenerates...
Yes it is an intriguing idea. It will be interesting to look at the cost factors involved. My guess is that only the wealthier members of the poplulation could afford the insurance thereby establishing a barrier for the average citizen who wants to exercise their Second Amendment rights. If enacted I see an interesting court battle ahead.
Insurance companies love making money. Why would they want to price most of their potential customers out of the market?
Nah. Anyone who can afford a gun can afford this insurance. Check out http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/, for example.
Very interesting idea- this would also go a long way towards beginning to build a database of gun owners since information would need to be kept for insurance purposes. Economics always play an important role with policy making. With this approach hopefully the insurance industry lobbies will help level the playing field in an area most often dominated by the NRA's influence
There are lots of other things - dangerous acts or behaviours - that society would benefit from putting fee's on to regulate.
Should we do down that path? I wouldn't mind......but it would never happen, as those very expensensive (to society) lifestyles tend to be lived by the liberals....
You COULD maybe comment on the substance of the article rather than just bash liberals.
This comment has been removed.
Like most gun critics you make the automatic assumption of complete compliance. And further, you seem to assume that a monetary remedy is the solution or at least a solution. It is not. A man was arrested last weekend for OUI for the 9th time, had no insurance, no drivers license since the 90's. Illegal gun owners who have no license to carry are certainly not going to rush out and buy insurance. Heads of household who do in fact own guns legally, and who would purchase insurance still have to be responsible for all members in the household who might have access to weapons. Lastly, a monetary payout to families of victims of shootings seems to be no solution at all. $100,000 or a million dollars for a son, daughter, husband, wife, ?????????????????? It is true that too many gun owners are lax about securing weapons in the house as well as enforcing the use and respect of guns by family members who may not be licensed or trained. That needs to be fixed. An honest discussion about medical or psychological testing as a part of gun ownership is reasonable but of course the ACLU would never allow that. We must remember that it is not the weapon, it is the hand and mind of the user of the weapon. Just like the man cited above who has been "prohibited" from driving since the 90's was driving every day with impunity. Was no one paying attention? Local police, family members, neighbors??? Nobody knew that he was driving?
These argumnets are not really worth my time to rebut, but I have nothing else to do right now. As I see it your logic goes something like this: 1)Prohibition against drunk driving did not stop that man over there from drinking and driving and killing someone. Therefore let's repeal ALL of the regulations and laws ahainst drunk driving that have, of course, saved many other lives. 2)Chemotherapy did not cure my sister's cancer and she died. Therefore let's disccard chemotherapy as a treatment against cancer because, athough it has saved millions of lives, it alone is not 100% effective. However, I do agree with one part of what you said "We must remember it is not the weapon, it is the hand and the mind of the user of the weapon". Indeed. And that is really what the rest of us ae so afraid of....that the guns are in "the hand and the mind" of very many people, many of whom are NRA members, that tying their shoes taxes their brainpower. Those folks are scary, and the adults are finally trying to come up with ways of dealing with them.
gr8te-
Your bloviating is, as usual, gratutious and mean-spririted. You continue to attack educated and safety-minded gun owners by questioning our intelligence and our commitment to well thought out gun control. Please try to add something meaningful to the conversation other than "...BLAH...BLAH..BLAH."
What would the liability insurance for gun ownership cover? You can't get insurance for criminal activity. Insurers would not write policies for people with histories of mental illness. If the insurance were a prerequisite for gun ownerhip the gun rights folk would scream that this was an infringment on their 2nd Amendment prerogatives to bear arms. What if no one would write a policy? What if they did and it was so prohibitively expensive for most people that only the rich could afford it? Universal registration and tracking of all transactions and transfers of gun ownership and ammunition would be a good start to at least knowing who owned the firearms. Maybe we should require a separate license to operate a weapon in addition to a background check on ownership. Maybe the operating license needs to be renewed annually or else the weapon is confiscated and penalties assessed against the owner. What about mandatory life imprisonment for illegally operating a gun without a license. There is much that can be done but this country needs to be committed to making it more difficult to own and operate a weapon aside from outright banning of assault weapons and high capacity rapid fire magazines. The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right to ammunition or bullets. You can bear all the arms as long as the arms aren't loaded. We need separate licenses for ammo which should be traceable and limited in the amount purchasable. Ever wonder why gun owners say they need all these weapons for target practice? What are they practicing to do?
Hi Guys,
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because this wouldn't solve everything, it's not worth considering. Nothing solves everything. But this could be part of a package of reforms. As it is now, there risk associated with guns is pretty much an economic externality. Why should it be that way?
Scot
Scot, Again, the problem is, that many (not all)of the "let's do nothing" gun crazies ( the "next thing you know, they will take away our face paint" types) are unable to comprehend your simple 5 sentence paragraph.
Thinking, caring people want to find effective ways to keep firearms and other dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals and people who may be a danger to themselves and to others. The challenge is to do so without sacrificing our freedoms. All ideas should be on the table except the ones that demonize and punish legal gun owners.
Brilliant! Let's make people buy insurance to exercise free speech and their other consitutional rights too!
For the sake of an argument, If one had to choose between the right to own and operate an automobile, and the rioght to own a gun, most americans would realize that an automobile is a higher priority.
Yet, most peopole don't argue over the requirements to have automobiles registered and insured, and for drivers to be licensed. Why should guns get preferential treatment?
Owning and driving an automobile is not a constitutionally protected right.
This comment has been removed.
Remember...illegal aliens kill over 10,000 americans every year.
More than all gun-related deaths combined.
Can we start deporting them?
As one of the liberals below says:
"Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because this wouldn't solve everything, it's not worth considering. Nothing solves everything. But this could be part of a package of reforms"
(of course, I know such logic is only intended when curbing rights decent people exercise...we must never infringe upon the rights of the hack/thug/layabout or illegal...)
This comment has been removed.
Thanks for making up this important statistic, 10,000 Americans killed by illegals each year. I googled it and learned that it was created from beautiful thin air. I look forward to future statistics that you create from whole cloth and distribute.
Thanks Scot. I'm really pleased to see this idea getting attention. It has a lot of common-sense benefits, and since insurance is regulated state-by-state, it would be possible to avoid the toxic atmosphere in Washington to get a few states on-board.
Plus it defangs the "Cars can kill people, should we ban cars?" argument - drivers are already mandated to carry liability insurance in most, if not all states.
Incidentally, the NRA already sells liability insurance. They must think liability insutrance has merits. So this plan benefits them too.
Excellent starting point, but the concept of liability should also be extended with legal reform allowing shooting victims or their surviving relatives to sue the pants off manufacturers and dealers for wrongful death. What kind of lopsided logic agrees with requiring automobile drivers to have liability insurance but not gun owners? Let the pro-gun crowd put its money where its mouth is.
Can you sue the pants off an automobile company when a driver injures you because of his negligence?
History, assault weapons and automobiles have very different purposes.
The idea merits a further look. A liability policy specifically attached to ownership of a gun would be very difficult to price, actuarily. Insurance companies LOVE to make these calculations, though, and if they could make a buck by selling the coverage, they would surely do it. But it begs the question-what, exactly, would be the event which the insurer would be protecting? A gun death? An injury? All these issues can be sorted out by actuaries, and priced profitably for an insurance company
The insurance plan has merit and is worthy of further consideration but to argue the other side for balance, does this not once again seek to restrict ( punish ) the vast majority of legal, responsible gun owners? While the outlying events of Sandy Hook, Columbine, Arizona certainly are front of mind, the vast majority of gun deaths related to crimes involve inner city - minority youth ie: gang bangers. Little of the insurance plan will curtail their activities unless a total national ban on private gun show sales and limits similar to the " one gun purchase per month " idea were also in place. Not to harp on an old tune but wasn't Bartley - Fox a great idea and didn't it rapidly get neutered by a lethal combination of defense attorneys, judges and jailers? And wasn't the initial Federal Assault Weapons ban reasonably good legislation that over the course of less than ten years, faded from the scene? If you look back at US history, I believe it was only 1968 that saw Federal law finally outlaw ( technically no but for all reasonable intents and purposes ) private ownership of actual machine guns? This would be a very bitter battle, but classing bolt action rifles, black powder long guns and shot guns into the legal ownership with insurance pool and outlawing - outright - all other types of rifles be worthy of study? This removes us from defining " assault rifle " it is everything that is not bolt action or shot gun. Pistols are more problematic; total import ban on all cheap hand guns, stiff insurance and thorough registration tracking for all others. Mandatory stiff sentences for use of a hand gun in a crime - all fodder for discussion. But beyond the 2nd Amendment arguments, we here in Massachusetts, a wealthy, fairly small industrialized state - cannot keep track of public assistance recipients and how they spend or misuse their funds, we tolerate graft, corruption and patronage that constantly erodes our government, how repeat DUI offenders continue to flaunt the law - how we can barely fill the pot holes on our roads ... all of this is to say that solutions, legislation and actual workable policy in response to pressing public issues are all the stuff of salon discussion and legislative puttering and sadly never the spine of workable law.
If you want to get rid of most gang related shootings, there is a simple solution to that, too, legalize and/or decriminalize most street drugs.
Follen:
Heretofore I hadn't been aware that speech could kill. But even that right, is not, of course, absolute. Recall Supreme Court Justice -- and famous Bostonian -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s observation: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."
The example you cite is, of course, an extreme and limited one. One that did not, and still does limit, free discussion and the dissemination of ideas in our society. The analogy might be continuing the law against ownership of fully-automatic (machine guns) weapons. How far are you willing to go to suppress free speech in the public interest?
I meant to say "...still does not limit." Sorry
CarlonCape:
How is that punishing them? I have insurance on my car. I don't see that as punishing me or a restriction of my rights.
Scot
welll.... in our society, driving is a privelidge, and not a right....so its reasonable (to me) to put conditions on the privledge. However, the constitution (which I know the liberals hate - because it holds their degenerecy in check) specifically states: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
But even the SC in Heller makes it clear that the right is not absolute. I think that's an aspect of this debate that conservatives frequently overlook as they, um, inveigh about the hypocrisy of liberals. Rights and responsibilities are always balanced. Along the same lines, one could argue that a seven-year-old has an unrestricted right to buy a gun. Or someone who is insane. Does anyone really believe that? I don't think so. The question, and it is a complex one, is where do you strike the balance? I think it's fair to say, in an era of mass shootings, that we don't yet have it right. I can't imagine anyone thinks that it was appropriate that some of these mentally twisted young men should have gotten guns (I realize they didn't all buy them, but some certainly did). They are just worried that whatever policy is developed doesn't make it impossible for them to get guns. That's a legitimate perspective, but I think too often it manifests itself as complete and total opposition to even eminently sensible laws and regulations. For example, would it really be so outrageous to require gun show owners to do background checks? And if you think so, please explain why.
Interesting. It would take some work to have it implemented properly. One concern that many gun owners would have is that the insurance companies do not become de facto gun regulators. Example, it becomes practically impossible to buy insurance for a certain type of weapon, therefore, the weapon is effectively banned.
Of course, like automobile insurance, it would only cover the individual owner of the gun. I will be VERY interested to see how the gang bangers are convinced to purchase insurance. A Reality TV show in the making?
I am not against the idea at first blush because I am a bit familiar with some of the numbers involved. This is purely a guess, but I don't believe that the insurance would be at all unreasonable for most gun owners, even those with AR-15's, like me.
Another reason I am not against it is because if one of my guns is used today by an unauthorized person (stolen), that does not preclude me from being sued. Some lawyer may want to claim that I should have built a stronger steel room, blah, blah, blah. Nevermind that he may not win, it would still cost money to defend.
But, if anyone wants gun owners to create an "insurance pool" in which we all contribute to pay for victims injured/killed by gang bangers, criminals, nutjobs....my answer is NO.
Scot makes excellent points about this method cleaning up a lot of problems in obtaining guns, storing them, etc. Good article!
Scot,
The way to allow that is before anyone can purchase a gun, they must apply for not only the insurance, but must go through the screening process, basically get pre-approval. Upon purchase of any firearm, the information must be sent to the insurance company and local police for their records and approval. It will also be able to track the amount of guns purchased.
People who own certain dogs who are deeemed dangerous, are required to carry extra liability, if they can get it, for their homeowner's policy. The fallacy on the far left is that by name calling or demeaning those who differ, is going to get the solution resolved quicker, doesn't fly.
More people are killed in Chicago in one year than mass shooting in America combined over the last 20. The liberals don't want to address that issue and understand that they are just as guilty with their hypocrisy as the far right absolute right to own any type of weapon. The truth is in the middle and so is the solution.
The first quote is the one the far left hate the most.
Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950) Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
For an immigrant to get into this country LEGALLY....they have to show proof of resources so they don't become a ward of the state, and have to have a medical exam by a public health officer.
Liberals want decent americans who are excercising their second amendment right to have to go thru a much more onerous process....
ANd yet defend to the last to let illegals, who kill upwards of 10,000 americans a year (MORE THAN GUN DEATHS) free reign over the nation.
WHat is wrong with the liberals? Why do they hate the country so much?
BamDad: What I find incredible in this part of the country is the willingness to submit to having oneself approved by a local police department as you stated in your comment. You realize that is not the norm in the vast majority of this country? The opportunity for abuse is tremendous and is, in fact, being practiced in this state right now. There are many towns in which an applicant will wait over 9 months for a license while the local police department delays. This occurs even though state law says the process must be completed within 40 days. Those police departments just ignore the law.
My other question would be: Why is it important for local police departments, or anyone else for that matter, to track the number of guns purchased? Are you trying to say that the more guns someone owns, the more likely they are to be a threat to society? They are somehow suspect because of what they own? Hogwash. That is profiling at it's very worst.
Guys:
Bam: I think your proposal makes good sense, but again, what would have to give is the idea that everything has to be instant, which has never made much sense to me.
History: No, I don't think gun owners in general should be part of a risk pool for criminals. But I do think that gun manufacturers shouldn't be exempted from liability they way they are now.
Scot
Perhaps the most disheartening part of this discussion is" thecpt" who must make it a liberal / conservative diatribe. Can't we just once have a discussion about something so important without trying to score political points. This is important.
Happy to remove any political references...
If we look simply at FACTS.... Illegal aliens kill more americans each year than gun violence.
If stopping unnecessary deaths is important (and I think we all agree it is)....
Can we start with the ILLEGALS before we go after something that is, in fact, a constituionally protected right?
@thecpt - where are you getting these numbers? You provide no citation or link. The only estimates that I have ever seen are those by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). He has referenced a statistic of around 9-10k deaths a year, of which maybe half are gun deaths. However, it is totally unclear where his numbers came from, since no entity collects data on this. These aren't facts, they are fabrications...