AntiGun group champions gun insurance

[paramedic70002]

Not a bad idea and may be workable but still lots of reasons to not like it.

Gun Guys : Where Everyone's a Straight Shooter!

Mandate Insurance To Reduce Gun Violence - It’s A Compelling Argument

An article in The Progressive Review by John Gear says that mandating firearm insurance would add market driven and risk assessment measures and tools to reduce gun violence.

Although further down in his article he equates civil liberties with gun ownership in work places -- a perspective we fundamentally reject -- Mr. Gear nonetheless lays out a bold and comprehensive argument for requiring gun owners, collectors, and the entire gun industry to be required to obtain insurance. His article is certainly worth reading and discussing.

"When people are accountable for risks imposed on others, they act more responsibly. Insurance is what enables this accountability," says Gear.

Unlike most ideas, Mr. Gear at least spreads responsibility not only to gun owners but to the entire gun industry as well, a notion we find refreshing. Still, we feel that gun insurance should be one of many policies to reduce gun violence in addition to requiring background checks on all gun sales, limiting handgun purchases to no more than one handgun per month, and requiring that gun owners report lost and stolen firearms to name just a few ideas.

We strongly believe that there is "no magic bullet" to reducing gun violence and that policies must work in tandem.

The article:

FIRE ARM INSURANCE by John Gear [gun, gun control, violence]

We can fix the gun problem. We can make America safer, without limiting
our right to bear arms. And we can do it without an expensive, dangerous,
and futile "War on Guns."

To solve the real problem (keeping guns out of the wrong hands-without
restricting other people) we must use an idea that has worked to limit
losses from many other hazards: insurance. That's right, insurance, the
system of risk-management contracts that lets people take responsibility
for choices they make that impose risks on others.

Insurance is what lets society accommodate technology. Without it, we
would have few autos, airplanes, trains, steamships, microwaves, elevators,
skyscrapers, and little electricity, because only the wealthiest could
accept the liability involved. When people are accountable for risks
imposed on others, they act more responsibly. Insurance is what enables
this accountability.

Rather than trying to limit access to or take guns away from law-abiding
adults, we must instead insist that the adult responsible for a gun at any
instant (maker, seller, or buyer) have enough liability insurance to cover
the harm that could result if that adult misuses it or lets it reach the
wrong hands.

Who gets the insurance proceeds, and for what? The state crime victims'
compensation fund, whenever a crime involving guns is committed or a gun
mishap occurs. The more victims, the bigger the payout. The greater the
damage (from intimidation to multiple murders and permanent crippling), the
greater the payout. The insurers will also pay the fund for other claims,
such as when a minor commits suicide by gun or accidentally kills a
playmate with Daddy's pistol. This will reduce such mishaps. Insurance is
very effective in getting people to adopt safe practices in return for
lower premiums.

When a crime involving a gun occurs, the firm who insured it pays the
claim. If the gun is not found or is uninsured (and there will still be
many of these at first) then every fund will pay a pro-rated share of the
damages, based on the number of guns they insure. This will motivate
insurance firms--and legitimate gun owners--to treat uninsured guns as
poison, instead of as an unavoidable byproduct of the Second Amendment.
Thus, insurance will unite the interests of all law-abiding citizens, gun
owners and others, against the real problem with guns: guns in the hands of
criminals, the reckless, the untrained, and juveniles.

Like other insurance, firearm insurance will be from a private firm or
association, not the government. Owners, makers, and dealers will likely
self-insure, forming large associations just as the early "automobilists"
did. Any financially-sound group, such as the NRA, can follow state
insurance commission rules and create a firearms insurance firm.

That's it. No mass or government registrations. Except for defining the
rules, no government involvement at all. Each owner selects his or her
insurance firm. By reaffirming the right to responsible gun ownership and
driving uninsured guns out of the system, we use a proven,
non-prohibitionist strategy for improving public safety.

Each insurance firm will devise a strategy for earning more revenue with
fewer claims. Thus gun owners -- informed by the actuaries -- will choose
for ourselves the controls we will tolerate, and the corresponding
premiums. (Rates will vary according to the gun we want to insure, our
expertise, and claims history.)

Some will want a cheaper policy that requires trigger locks whenever the
gun is not in use; others will not. Hobbyists will find cheaper insurance
by keeping their firearms in a safe at the range. Newer, younger shooters
and those who choose weapons that cause more claims will pay higher
premiums. That way, other owners, with more training and claims-free
history, will pay less. (Insurance companies are expert at evaluating
combined risks and dividing them up-in the form of premiums-with exquisite
precision.)

Soon, the firms will emphasize cutting claims. That means promoting gun
safety and fighting black market gun dealers, which is where many criminals
get guns. And every legitimate gun owner will have a persuasive reason --
lower premiums -- to help in the fight.

We need to start discussing this now, because it will take several years
to enact. Gun-control advocates will hate this because it forsakes the
failed prohibitionist approach. But the evidence is clear: there is
virtually no chance that prohibiting guns can work without destroying our
civil liberties, and probably not even then.

And the organized gun lobby will hate it too, because most of their power
comes from having the threat of gun prohibition to point to. But again the
evidence is clear: we have the current gun laws -- ineffective as they are
-- because we have neglected a right even more important to Americans than
the right to bear arms: the right to be safely unarmed.

Naturally, many gun owners will resent paying premiums, because they
resent assuming responsibility for risks that, so far, we've dumped on
everyone else. So be it. It is only by assuming our responsibilities that
we preserve our rights. Some will note that the Second Amendment doesn't
include "well-insured." But, just as the press needs insurance against
libel suits to exercise the First Amendment, we must assume responsibility
for the risks that firearms present to society.

The problem is real, even such prohibitionist strategies are doomed to fail,
even if passed. Sadly, some pro-gun groups have already revved up their own
mindless propaganda, blaming Springfield on liberals, TV, Dr. Spock, "bad seeds,"
you name it -- anything but the easy access to guns that made massacres
like Springfield so quick, so easy, and so likely.

This won't work instantly -- but it will work, because it breaks the
deadlock about guns and how to keep them away from people who shouldn't
have them, without stomping on the rights of the rest of us. Thus it
changes the dynamics of this issue and ends the lethal deadlock over guns.

It's time for everyone, people seeking safety from guns and law-abiding
gun owners alike, to work together to fight firearms in the wrong hands,
and it's time to fight with FIRE: Firearm Insurance, Required Everywhere.

John Gear is a Vancouver business consultant who specializes in systems
approaches to solving problems.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[sniper58]

I envision a slippery slope here. I see the premiums being a factor of what type of gun one buys. Will premiums be level, or will owners of EBR's pay more than someone who owns a 2" .38? I also envision "uninsurable guns" much like some homeowner's policies won't insure your home if you own a certain breed of dog. Will "assault rifles" even be insurable? Enter the politics of semantics and political correctness. The Victim's Compensation Fund could have payouts to the families of gangbangers who were shot commiting a crime - all determined by a judge or a panel of Sheeple who can't even spell the word "justifiable."

On a side note, the article references only 192 justifiable homicides? That sounds like another fabricated statistic. The NRA magazine alone lists 8-10 every month, and those are only the ones the editor allowed to be printed! The other 88 must have been posted here by CT-Mike! BTW Mike, a hearty THANK YOU FOR YOUR POSTS!

[EW3]

Hmmm... I guess this will work just like all the people out there driving without car insurance.

All this does is penalize law-abiding people while the Bad Guys, being Bad Guys just go about their business as they always have and always will.

[Kerbouchard]

I don't see this as a slippery slope at all, I see this as a very large jump off a steep cliff.

This is outrageous. For one, it ensures all gun registration. Something the Brady Bunch has been trying for years.

For another, it ensures that I, a responsible gun owner, will have to pay for the victims of gang bangers. How does that make any sense?

It would in one fail swoop, ban EBR's, Assault rifles, High Capacity Magazines, and Concealed Carry, or make them so cost prohibitive that most law abiding citizens could not pay the premiums for. And all, without a grandfather clause.

Well, boys and girls...this is what they've been waiting for. I would under no circumstances follow this law if it were to come to fruition. If this is the break that causes a legal gun-owner to become a criminal than so be it.

[dukalmighty]

Like others have said the criminals won't be insuring their guns,I think it's ridiculous

[raysheen]

I don't see this as a slippery slope at all, I see this as a very large jump off a steep cliff.

This is outrageous. .

I'm with Kerbouchard on this one

[kazzaerexys]

Driving is a privilege (something the state can put conditions on), RKBA is a right. A right that you need to by insurance for is just stupid.

The practical result is the same as outlawing so-called "Saturday night specials." Anything that increases the cost of owning a gun is discriminating against the ability of the poor to exercise their rights.

Besides, we already have a way of dealing with people who use their guns inappropriately---criminal sentences and civil liability.

[dnowell]

I think non-mandatory insurance would be awesome. Let insurance cover legal costs when you shoot a thug and he tries to sue!

[LongRider]

I don't see this as a slippery slope at all, I see this as a very large jump off a steep cliff.

This is outrageous. For one, it ensures all gun registration. Something the Brady Bunch has been trying for years.

For another, it ensures that I, a responsible gun owner, will have to pay to for the victims of gang bangers. How does that make any sense?

It would in one fail swoop, ban EBR's, Assault rifles, High Capacity Magazines, and Concealed Carry, or make them so cost prohibitive that most law abiding citizens could not pay the premiums for. And all, without a grandfather clause.

Well, boys and girls...this is what they've been waiting for. I would under no circumstances follow this law if it were to come to fruitition. If this is the break that causes a legal gunowner to become a criminal than so be it.

THANK YOU !!! This is such a moronic idea on so many levels it would take me a week to cover them all. Excellent post

[SelfDefense]

I find all mandatory insurance to be anti-American. Why should I be forced to share risk with anyone? Everyone should be responsible for their financial own obligations. Period. I have no problem with insurance companies or with those who choose to bet against themselves. But it should be a choice. Many places that claim car insurance is mandatory actually provide an alternative if one can demonstrate necessary financial resources.

Most people would benefit themeselves significantly if they did not have health insurance. The outrageous premiums far outweigh the cost of normal health care and even emergency services. Most people spend a thousand dollars or more per year in auto insurance. Twenty years without an claim... the arithmetic is easy. Of course, if something horribly bad happens...

Mandatory gun insurance? No way!

[SIGguy229]

So...now they have come up with something that targets lawful/legal gun owners, what do they plan on doing about criminals with guns?

I agree with the notions of driving is a priviledge; owning a gun is a right.

But look what happens when you drive without insurance (or proof of insurance)--you get a ticket.

I can see it now--carry, own, or possess a firearm without insurance and all of the guns are confiscated.

This whole concept is wrong. The only insurance on my guns is the insurance against theft or loss.

[Colin]

Actually this may backfire on them, it's way cheaper to get insurance for a shooting range then it is for a mountain biking event. Insurance companies are not known for their rose coloured glasses, they will take a hard look at the numbers to equate the real risk, not the perceived.

[BikerRN]

Me thinks this is a scheme "cooked up" by someone in the insurance industry to make more money, and erode our rights.

Biker

[ccw9mm]

... requiring gun owners, collectors, and the entire gun industry to be required to obtain insurance.

If it walks, talks and smells like camel dung, it probably is. This sounds like nothing more than another way to skate around reality and point the finger in the wrong direction.

The premise depends on a large presumption, that upstanding citizens and "industry" are the problem. Nothing could be further from the truth. Criminals are the problem, closely followed by the unconstitutional denial of citizens' ability to protect themselves, and closely followed by the ruination of people who actually dare protect themselves.

Seems to me that the application of a cost for the risks imposed should be, if anything, placed squarely on the heads of those who are the cause of the problem: criminals, when they get caught, via penalties (death, jail, financial restitution); and bureaucrats, lawyers and other public servants, when they get hired, via having to personally cough up for such "insurance." They need to feel the branch creak each and every time they seek to place the unjust weight of unjust laws on the heads of citizens judged to have defended themselves against attack.

... because we have neglected a right even more important to Americans than the right to bear arms: the right to be safely unarmed.

The proposer of this "insurance" scam does not know the meaning of the word. A person has the right to defend against attack. A person has the right to decide to not do so, as well, to make the personal decision to be unarmed and unable to defend oneself. That all is part of being a person of value. But, nobody has the right to suggest that anyone's right to self defense is trumped by another's level of discomfort with that. Nobody has that right or authority.

[SixBravo]

Hmm. And the criminals, who in all likelyhood are not allowed to possess anyway, still won't follow it. This doesn't make any sense. At all. Period. Like most other anti-gun legislation.