Since I first wrote about gun liability insurance in the wake of the Newtown massacre, three states — Connecticut, Massachusetts and California — have introduced bills to require that gun owners purchase liability insurance. The proposal is designed to protect both owners and society from the misuse of firearms. As some gun owners and lobbyists maintain, this is a covert way of banning or confiscating guns. This is untrue. In fact, you would be able to buy as many guns as you wanted. Like a house or car, you’d need an insurance policy to own them…. Gun insurance is a win-win proposal because of its reliance upon the market to assign and price risk. Gun manufacturers would have incentives to “customize” guns to the owner through biometric safeties. That would raise the price of guns, yes, but it would also boost their profits and probably sell more guns. Safety sells in every consumer product. Wouldn’t you want to pay a little extra for a safer car, ladder or baby seat?
In the search for ways to achieve something resembling common sense gun control that ALL Americans- even Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes ©- can get behind, there is an idea that deserves more attention than it’s received. The idea of requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance is neither new nor decidedly radical. After all, proof of liability insurance is required to operate a motor vehicle, own a business, and undertake a myriad of mundane life events. For some reason, gun owners, who possess something decidedly deadly, can own any numbers of weapons free of any liability insurance requirement. It seems that those who demand their “gun rights” be respected without question, hesitation, or reservation feel no reason to accept any corresponding responsibilities.
Despite what some lobbyists and gun owners contend, requiring liability insurance is not part of a covert plot to take guns away from freedom-loving Americans. At no time has the idea of requiring liability insurance been coupled with any sort of plan to confiscate guns. No, this is about personal responsibility- requiring Americans to insure themselves in the same way they’re required to in order to drive an automobile, something that can also deliver a high degree of lethality. It’s not about limiting the number of guns an individual would be allowed to own (though I would be happy to see such a limit become law). It’s not about limiting gun ownership, merely requiring acceptance of the potential adverse consequences of gun ownership.
Proudly Closed-Minded Gun Control Foes © will conjure up all manner of specious arguments against requiring liability insurance. Most of these arguments revolve around easily disproven myths, for instance:
Would this prevent anyone from purchasing a gun?: No, because neither an insurance company nor a governmental agency would determine if someone will be allowed to purchase a firearm. It’s a simple insurance requirement, with pricing to be determined by the marketplace.
Would guns still have to be licensed and background checks performed?: Of course, but that’s no different than what’s currently required of potential gun owners. No licensing and/or background checks would be performed by an insurance company, whose only role is to insure a weapon.
What about the second amendment?: What about it? There’s absolutely nothing about a liability insurance requirement that would impact 2nd Amendment rights. This is about requiring that gun owners who demand their rights be respected accept the corresponding responsibility. Gun owners would no longer get a free ride, but it has nothing to do with a person’s right and/or ability to purchase firearms.
Wouldn’t this penalize responsible gun owners?: Not at all, and it could potentially reward responsible gun owners. In the same way auto insurers provide discounts to safe drivers, companies who would provide liability insurance may well offer discounts to gun owners who took gun safety training classes and/or had gun locks and safes to store their weapons.
As one might imagine, the next argument to be presented by Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes © might be “Yeah, but criminals aren’t going to buy insurance, so why do anything?” Sure, criminals are going to do what they do, as is always the case. That’s why their criminals. That’s not to justify throwing our hands up in the air and walk away without doing anything, though. One idea to address this argument would be to require sellers as well as buyers to have proof of liability insurance. As with safe drivers and responsible gun owners, sellers who conduct business safely and responsibly might be offered discounts as incentives to continue such practices. It might also help cut down on the number of illegal straw purchases.
Surprisingly, though, even Chicago police chief Garry McCarthy recently said that he favors gun liability insurance. Although he also made some ill-advised comments that gun owners who send money to lobby elected officials are “agents of political corruption,” it’s clear that Chicago could benefit from gun insurance.
As you can imagine, gun groups were not amused by McCarthy’s remarks.
“Garry McCarthy’s understanding of our Constitution barely qualifies him as a meter maid, never mind the chief of the nation’s third largest police department,” commented ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson . “What on earth would possess McCarthy to assert that constitutional rights should be meted out based on public opinion polls?”
If we’re going to be critiquing someone’s “understanding of our Constitution,” I’d like to ask Pearson which “well-regulated militia” he belongs to. You don’t get to accuse someone of selectively interpreting the Constitution simply because their rendering runs counter to YOUR selective evaluation. From where I come from, we call that “hypocrisy.”
The fact is that neither Chief McCarthy’s nor Pearson’s interpretations have ANYTHING to do with the Constitution. The idea of requiring gun owners and selling to have liability insurance in no way curtails the right to own a gun. Such a requirement would have no impact whatsoever on the 2nd Amendment…not that this will stop Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes © from ululating at some considerable length about how “LIBRULZ AND THE GUVMINT’S GONNA TAKE OUR GUNZ!!!” This isn’t about the 2nd Amendment at all; it’s about holding gun owners accountable for the damage done by their weapons in the same way drivers pay for the potential damage done by their vehicles. Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes © are not going to be happy about ANYTHING requiring them to behave responsibly or consider the safety and well-being of others. For them, it’s all about rights- responsibilities are evidently for losers and Liberals.
[L]iability coverage would offer great protection if a gun was lost, stolen or used by a third party to commit a crime. It’s about public and private protection, not gun control. It’s an idea that seeks to shield the public from harm without intruding upon private rights.
The truth is that requiring gun owners, buyers, and sellers to have proof of liability insurance is an idea that should be at the very least a minimum expectation. If you’re going to own, buy, and/or sell guns, then you should have the decency to agree to behave in a responsible, common sense manner.
Here’s a truly radical concept for Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes © to keep in mind: Surprisingly, the world doesn’t revolve around your and your rights. Sometimes it really IS about society as a whole and not just your selfish expectations. I know; disappointing, eh?? Welcome to the real world.
