Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance?

[noneko]

Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance?

by Caitlin Kenney

All kinds of proposals to reduce gun violence have been floated recently. One idea that has gotten the attention of economists is liability insurance. Most states require car owners to have liability insurance to cover damages their vehicles cause to others; some economists think we

Comments

[intrikate88]

In our present political climate, I... think I see a lot of potential benefits in policies like these? Argument #2 is bullshit for obvious reasons, and while the gun = car analogy is not perfect because I can not drive a gun to work, I think that requiring people to take responsibility for the potential damage of their used possessions is both in line with people who wish to be free to own guns (not that you are forbidden even under the proposed gun legislation but w/e) and those who wish to promote damage control before the onset of said damage.

Okay, everyone else, point out the flaws; my swollen lymph nodes are pressing on my brain.

[shadwing]

I think the flaw is there is already a thriving black/gray market for guns, and 1000's of guns already out in the 'wild' that are unregistered and gotten though illegal means. So burdening new gun owners with getting insurance wouldn't do jack squat if somebody was harmed with an illegal/uninsured firearm.

This plan would work if most of the guns in the country were already registered and held by licenced owners, but that isn't true. It would put more burden on the 'good' gun owners and do nothing to curb the 'bad' ones.

To continue the Car/Gun analogy, if you are hit by a driver who has no insurance, you can (in theory) sue them for damages but till that is settled all the costs of your injuries would come out of your (or your insurance) pocket. And if the person who hit you has no insurance there is a good chance they don't have the resources to pay for your injuries as is.

Same thing if you are shot by a person who has no 'gun insurance' you are SoL in terms of getting any sort of reporations to yourself or others.

[hinoema]

I don't know about separate insurance, but they should have to pay a huge extra premium for home insurance.

I had an insurer flat out refuse to insure my house because I had a dog that was half chow, and they have a reputation for attacking people, apparently. The company I did get charged me more because of that. If you can get higher premiums for a potentially harmful (which he wasn't) dog, then deadly weapons on the property should require much higher premiums.

[noneko]

OT, but my family's dog is half chow (and a sweetie), and I know that a lot of apartment buildings/housing complexes won't allow them at all. We had to beg the dog boarding place we take her to to give her an interview (since their gut reaction was "no chows!").

[hinoema]

It's ridiculous. That dog wouldn't hurt anyone. My Dachshund, on the other hand, would chew your ankles off if you didn't belong on the property.

[natyanayaki]

Off topic but, I'm honestly completely surprised that Chows are considered a dangerous dog, I didn't know this until recently (and considering I spend as much time as I can reading about dogs, I would assume that that's a huge lapse on my part)...and...one of the dogs I grew up with (my "grandmother's" neighbor's dog) was a Chow, and she was super friendly, gentle, cuddly. I don't think I ever even heard her bark! Frak BSL.

[fenris_lorsrai]

definitely don't like the idea of private insurance for guns. Can you imagine the tables for precisely how valuable each type of wound justifies? URGH. and it really wouldn't actually help local police department budgets, who are the ones dealing with the social cost

[theguindo]

The problem with requiring insurance on guns is you do still have people that use them for subsistence hunting. many probably can't afford to license them if the fee is as steep as $100.

mte. This was the first thing I thought of when I read the subjectline and I was like NO.

There's a difference between gun ownership and car ownership: you do not have a constitutionally granted right to own a car.

I like your alternative solution, I think that is brilliant and it's a very good way to work around the issue.

[moonshaz]

so it should probably be that you register the gun on the grand list of the town as personal property (just like a car).

This idea makes a lot of sense, in places that have personal property taxes. But that's not the case everywhere. For example, in IL, where I live, there are no taxes for personal property, just for "real" property (buildings, homes, land, etc.). In a sense, there is a tax for owning a car, because you have to register it, and this has to be renewed every year. But there's no personal property tax per se.

I have no idea what percentage of US states have a personal property tax and which do not. But it's definitely not universal, and in states that don't already have a personal property tax system in place, I don't think it would be practical to create one just for guns (or that gun owners would be likely to go along with it). Unfortunately. :|

[fenris_lorsrai]

you could use the same rolls used for houses then. you don't get out of it if you don't own a house, you just use the same bureacratic machinery that's already in place instead of creating a separate one that does virtually the same thing. You can also combine together the bills for efficiency. No sense making a separate office for it when they can send out the notices together and already have a pretty detailed system that generally works.

[nitasee]

While I like the idea in theory - insurance for gun owners - I don't see it's all that workable considering how many people drive without insurance that's required by law. The people most likely to use a gun in a crime are the ones who won't bother with insurance.

[moonshaz]

I have to admit that I agree with this. In addition to the reasons mentioned, I think it would also be a lot harder to police a liability insurance for firearms law.

For example, in my state (IL), the cops ask to see your "proof of insurance" for your car ANY time you are stopped for ANYTHING. If you don't have it, you get a ticket. If you're already getting a ticket for speeding or something, you get slapped with another, separate ticket. (If you do have insurance but forgot to put your insurance card in your car or something, you can go to the courthouse and get the ticket cleared by showing your proof of insurance there). It's hard to imagine any kind of policing system analogous to that for firearms.

So I don't know.... I really DO like the idea in theory, though. I just don't know how it could be effectively implemented.

[aviv_b]

Frankly, I'm surprised that this already isn't the case. As someone else pointed out, you often can not get homeowners insurance or pay an exorbitant premium if you own a certain breed of dog.

Since study after study has shown that having a gun in your home increases the chances that it will be used in that home against another person who isn't committing a crime, it seems logical that liability insurance for said homeowners should cost more.

edited for missing word.