Mark Greene says its time to require gun owners owners to insure their weapons.
Most of us would agree that guns such as shotguns or deer rifles, are about hunting, target shooting and being a sportsman. But assault style weapons are not about hunting wildlife or skeet shooting. They are about military combat and killing lots of people very very quickly. And there is a wide range of weapons in between.
Since we’re not likely to be able to remove the already vast numbers guns in the American marketplace, we can at least hold the owners of more powerful weapons responsible for the very real danger that these kinds of guns represent to the rest of us. Its time to require owners of assault style weapons to insure their weapons for, say, $200 a year. Other guns could be insured for far less. Some standard hunting rifles and shotguns would require no insurance at all.
The reasoning is simple. In America, if you own a car, you must buy insurance. Why? Because cars can kill people. Why not the same with an assault rifle?
|
The reasoning is simple. In America, if you own a car, you must buy insurance. Why? Because cars can kill people. Why not the same with an gun? This would create a pool to pay for the damage done when these weapons are used to commit violent crimes. And the by product of insuring assault weapons and other combat style weapons? The newly created gun insurance industry can then do what the insurance industry does best, namely, background checks.
This should be agreeable to the more conservative factions on our country as it takes background checks out the hands of the Federal and State Governments and puts it in the hands of private industry. A private industry who’s profits depend on doing these checks well.
And insuring more powerful weapons would be an appealing new market for insurance companies because of the relatively low likelihood of any given weapon being used in a crime, much less a mass killing. The insurance industry, working in partnership with state and federal governments would manage the insurance pool, and provide background checks on their policy holders to insure they do not have a criminal record or a history of mental illness. Gun owners rates for insurance would go up or down depending on the presence of things like trigger locks and gun cabinets. The more secure you keep your weapons, the lower your rates.
When mass shootings occur, the insurance pool would provide funds to pay for the vast range of costs associated with this kind of crime, including funerals, medical care, psychotherapy and social services, compensation for lost wages, and the range of other costs that would normally fall on the helpless victims and their shattered communities. It is simply no longer acceptable for the arms manufacturers, gun dealers, and and combat style weapon enthusiasts to expect taxpayers to pick up the bill when crimes are committed with these weapons.
Meanwhile, those who choose not to properly insure their combat weapons or 30 shot banana clips would be subject to a fine if they are caught blasting away in the woods without their insurance card. If they continue to fail in their responsibility to insure such weapons, the weapon can be legally confiscated. And if you own and uninsured weapon used in a crime? You can be sued for damages by the victim or victims of that crime.
In a perfect world, we would not be imagining the horror of shielding our children from a firestorm of bullets, spewed out by weapons that serve no real purpose beyond their relentless capacity for shooting people. But this is the situation each and every one of us finds ourselves in. Its a huge problem. But as any red blooded American will tell you, market forces, not government regulation are the best solution for solving our society’s problems. Or, at least, putting a serious dent in them.
Requiring that assault weapon owners insure their guns will empower market forces other than gun manufacturers and the NRA to enter the legislative fray.
|
Requiring that gun owners insure their guns will empower market forces other than gun manufacturers and the NRA to enter the legislative fray. Not only will the victims of gun violence have financial recourse when assault style and other weapons are used to commit crimes, the insurance industry’s vast army of lobbyists will have something new to talk about with our elected officials. Namely, how to best curb gun violence. Because every murder committed with a gun will reduce their bottom line.
Many people rightfully say that even if we outlaw assault weapons today, there are too many already in circulation. This will address that issue, by required law abiding assault weapons owners to insure their weapons, thereby insuring that these weapons are in the hands of responsible owners. And each time they pay that bill, assault weapon owners will no doubt give additional thought to whether or not they really need such a weapon.
But the bottom line is this: if you own a car, you are obligated to insure it. Why? Because of the very real danger it represents to your fellow citizens. It’s high time we treat dangerous weapons in the very same way.
UPDATE:
A number of commenters have noted the difficulty of defining exactly what qualifies as an assault weapon. An alternative approach would to simply insure all weapons that hold more than a certain number of rounds or are above a certain caliber. This would dramatically reduce the annual fee for any given weapon and insure that there is clarity about what is required under the law.
Insuring guns is not about punishing law abiding gun owners. But if we insist on placing the value of unrestained and unlimited gun sales over the safety of our general population (which we most certainly do) then we must collectively insure our guns in order to protect the innocent men, women, and children who are impacted by our national pro gun priorities.
I come at the insurance question from a different angle. If we want to figure out the best policies to have towards firearms, the insurance industry is already a good source of information (if you read between the lines). It may be the ultimate arbiter in much of our society’s treatment of gun ownership. Yes, they’re out to make a buck, and they tend to be giant corporations who are not interested in playing fair or maintaining a competitive system, and they are no more honest to their consumers than any other business. The insurance sector is not necessarily a… Read more »
The most obvious flaw with argument is that we as American citizens have the right to own a gun. We do not have the right to drive a car, it is a privilege granted to us under certain circumstances one of which being we have insurance. What happens when a financially disadvantaged person does not purchase insurance for his or her weapon and partakes in a mass shooting? Who pays for that? All the law abiding gun owners who pay their insurance. Your solution in no way deter gun violence because any person that wants to get a gun will… Read more »
^agree, plus the Supreme Court has said that they can’t create laws that would create a price gap that would prevent people from owning firearms for self defense.
Every single time something like this tragedy happens, we hear the same overreactions. There are 300 million people in this country. There are over 310 million firearms owned currently with about 16 million more bought every year. You can go back through recorded history of mass shootings and there hasn’t been an upward trend in the amount. There hasn’t been a downward trend either. It’s stayed consistent throughout the years. Since states added carry laws, crime has been on a downward trend and it’s continued down. Every gun control measure tried so far has failed to have the same results.… Read more »
JohnWeeast: I’m interested in the insurance idea just so that those “injured” in the “civil sense,” have a pool of recourse. It really ought not be that expensive, and it ought not be an exclusionary (in ownership) thing. I’m truly not seeking to reap any reduction in injuries and death from Mark’s idea.
I see the inherent nature of the gun. As the automobile, the gun can cause damages. Some states (probably 48 of them), have compulsory liability insurance.
But it’s already covered. In automobiles, injuries are covered by the medical insurance and the payments are just to cover repairs done by the auto body shops. With Firearms, since it’s a criminal act, medical insurance still covers injuries, while the justice department covers punishment. You don’t get to have recourse against those that commit a crime against you. You can’t sue those that rob you. Although for some reason criminals can sue the police departments. If you try to monetize shootings, someone will shoot themselves and blame someone else. Then they raise rates on everyone to cover “unknown shooters.”… Read more »
What does insurance do? Are you seriously saying that if someone insures their weapon that murders won’t happen? I don’t think you’d be able to find 1 parent of a child that was murdered in CT that would be willing to trade their child for an insurance settlement. In fact, I’ll bet if you talk with most crime victims, they want to know why, and HOW it can be prevented and not stick out their hand for a insurance settlement. Without finding the root cause of the problem, insurance does NOTHING to stop the violence. You’re argument of the number… Read more »
I gotta bookmark this web web page it seems quite helpful exceptionally helpful
Please excuse my glibness.
What the headline really said was, “Back in 1997 and 2005 lots of guncontrol belivers claimed loudly and publically and on-the-record that taking certain steps to increase the presence of legal firearms in society (that were subsequently taken) would be followed by more gun crimes just like day follows night but the exact opposite happened and isn’t that interesting?”
Headline for the Houston Chronicle today, ” The Murder rate here last year was so low that people who predicted higher murder rates when gun laws were liberalized in 1997 and 2005 are idiots.”
Rum,
That’s hilarious. Really. Hilarious. And a productive addition to the conversation. So, thanks.
Mark You say that you live in Texas and that you own guns. Have you therefore actually read the gun laws applicable in Texas? I have. There are pages and pages of them. It is already a crime to negligently expose a firearm, just for example. I have trouble also with the idea that any gun-aware person would talk about the difference between “garden variety” guns and scary looking ones. See, the first thing that any instructor (good parent, uncle. etc) would tell you about gun safety is that you treat them all the same., big or little, loaded or… Read more »
You know what? The idea that gun owners will have their weapons confiscated is simply paranoia whipped up by wedge issue political hacks in DC. It is just as likely that the NRA will organixe and fund an armed takeover of the US Government. Which, of course, is equally absurd. Although there are days when the constant anti-government rants make me wonder. 😉
Honestly, when will you guys ever learn? Analogizing car insurance to required gun insurance for fun owners is absurd at best. 1. Driving is a privilege not a right. 2. You can’t force me to pay a penalty for exercising any right. (Remember, it’s unconstitutional to require me to get a State-issued photo ID to vote. Right vs privilege.) Sure, you frame the issue as ” [i]ts about what law abiding gun owners can and should be willing to do to cushion the devastating impact of our collective decision to live in a gun permissive society.” But you can easily… Read more »
Your argument couldn’t be more off the mark. If you insist on comparing swimming pools with guns then lets do so. Any owner of a swimming pool KNOWS they have an obligation to put a fence around that pool or face liability for any accidental deaths. There is a clear and commonly understood degree of responsibility when you own a pool. But there is also a vast difference between a swimming pool and a combat style gun. It is clearly a matter of the degree to which a so called assault weapon can be used to kill many people in… Read more »
“People are being slaughtered at an alarming rate. And its because in a society like ours its simply not safe to have ever more lethal weapons (or dynamite) readilly available to any person who wants them.” I equate this with the ill conceived logic of the liberal mantra “more guns equals more death and fewer guns equals fewer deaths.” Obviously you should take a one way ticket to a country like Russia. It is a safe haven of a place since it has eradicated private ownership of guns by law abiding citizens (except for licensed hunters) through decades of totalitarian… Read more »
Your arguments typify that of the gun lobby. but cherry picking data and making false comparisons isnt going to change the fact that most Americans are deciding that guns are a real and present danger. Yes, you are absolutely 100% right that guns don’t kill people. They just make it a lot easier for people to get the job done. The case I’m making here does’t even impact your garden variety rifle or shotgun. Nor does it seek to limit access to combat style weapons. It simply insures that resources are in place when innocents are mowed down.
, it’s unconstitutional to require me to get a State-issued photo ID to vote.
This is not true. Thus far Pennsylvania’s voter ID law has withstood constitutional challenge. It is now before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but the Superior Court has said the requirement of having a picture ID in order to vote is constitutional.
GPS tagging sounds like great idea. But why limit its application to current gun free zones? Why not extend the gun free zones to include every high crime area? That would instantly force illegal guns off the street because they would not have the tracking devices that make them so easy to find. Using this same clever trick, we could quickly mop up the Taliban in A Stan. Just declare their whole country a Gun Free Zone except for those guns with the GPS chip(AKA drone magnets) The Warlords would line up to comply. It would be a small additional… Read more »
***But why limit its application to current gun free zones? Why not extend the gun free zones to include every high crime area?***
Its really strange, but for some strange reason, Lanza did not see that particular sign in Newtown. It seems the the LA, NY, Boston, Chi…gangs don’t see them either. Weird!
Well if we’re just here to shoot down ideas, I’m sure the LA gangs will be lining up to apply for carry permits. But this isnt about what the Taliban will do. Its about what law abiding gun owners can and should be willing to do to cushion the devestating impact of our collective decision to live in a gun permissive society.
No…not trying to shoot-down any ideas (me). I bring up the non-compliance by gangs only as a vibrent illustration of such. If you do the math, an all-gun insurance pool will dwarf the illegally, non-insured gang shootings and easily cover the damages they cause.
I don’t drink and drive, but I pay they communal rates as if I do.
Thanks Rob,
My comment aimed at Rum, by the way…
Too bad “Assault Weapons” cannot be owned by civilians in the United States. The guns purchased are merely watered down versions of their military big brothers. Yes they are marketed as assault rifles but anyone who knows guns knows they aren’t. Much of the stock and internal mechanics are not even closely similar. These “Assault Rifles” are not capable of burst selection and are not capable of proper handling in extreme conditions. I could easily pick up a $150 Ruger 10/22 and do just as much damage. Insurance is an idiotic idea. A real idea would be a mandatory built… Read more »
Greg,
Gun enthusiasts take so much pride in their gun knowledge. But in the greater scheme of things it is a minor accomplishment. What is more important is good ideas about how to protect innocents from being slaughtered. Your GPS idea is pretty great but your tone leaves something to be desired.
Just as an aside, I’m currently in line inside the rotunda of the National Archives in Washington, DC about to view the original copy of the Bill of Rights along with the Constitution. Declaration of Independence, and for two days only, the Emancipation Proclamation, written in Lincoln’s own hand. Makes me very proud to be an American.
“Collective culpability?” Being a member of a group, ie gun owners, should define ones guilt or innocence? Mao or Stalin would have no problem with that notion but I doubt T. Jefferson would embrace it. Car ownership per se is not a concern of the state, it is driving on state roads. On private roads (like a race track) one does not need a license, insurance, bumpers, etc. I am serious about the solution being along the lines of an expanded CCW permit to cover the carrying of Scary Weapons outside ones personal property. It would work in practice and… Read more »
If anti-government paranoia was an invalid thing on which to base public policy, there would never have been a Bill of Rights made integral to the US Constitution. As a matter of fact, the Framers made it explicitly clear with the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments that there were limits to what the Authorities were permitted to study about individuals. They cannot bug your bedroom or read all your mail or know the location of all your weapons. Being human, they cannot be trusted with that kind of leverage over their fellows. If there was a way past the difficulty… Read more »
What continues to STUN me about gun rights arguments like your is how you continully stoke fears about the loss of a right which is CLEARLY in no danger of being lost. Its codified in the Bill of Rights, for crying out loud! But what you seem to care less about is the collective culpability of the gun looby and gun owners (like myself) in the clear and present danger a gun permissive society creates for its citizens.
This ought not even be viewed in a “Gun Rights” mode. This is a “responsable citizen” idea. It will be a cost of owning such things a an altered nation.
The honest, clear thought process and logic in this article create an indisputable (IMO) argument for the proposed risk-pool. Its free from nuclear-grade knee-jerks and thus, it allows true focus on a true issue with truth as its basis. This idea of compulsory insurance (for all guns IMO) begins to blend pragmatism into a an emotional slurry. In New Hampshire, no motorist is compelled to have their vehicle insured. As a result of that allowance and now a bad consumer economy, many (BIG numbers) of NH people drive into other states without insurance. Some find out the hard way that… Read more »
This is actually the best idea I’ve heard on the subject. Insurance for wrongful death and wrongful injury be the holder of the weapon is a damn good Idea Mark! I would actually not stipulate “assault weapons,” as the classification is as mystical as “the Saturday Night Special.” Both are/were classifications invented by liberal media long ago. To some, Assault Rifle means “scary looking gun.” To others it means “semi-auto.” Nearly anyone using the term immediately indicated to the gun-knowledgable that the speaker is not — not “gun knowledgable.” Limiting to the “Mystical Category” would only complicate things and discourage… Read more »
Thanks for your excellent input, Rob. As you can see, I have attempted in bring your thinking into the article.
Smokin job!!!!
Its the only exciting prospect regarding guns I’ve ever seen.
The state demands liability insurance only to operate your car on their highways. They have no right or basis to require you to insure something that stays in your garage. Almost every bad act with any type of gun is already characterized under the Law as a Crime, ie, an intentional bad act. Liability insurance basically never covers that which someone chooses to do. If so called assault weapons are to be treated as a distinct class – which they are only on the basis of certain styling clues – the best approach imho would be to treat them under… Read more »
Interesting that there’s not yet a response to you from the author. The gun control crowd seems very reluctant to admit that ostracizing, humiliating, and otherwise punishing legal gun owners is their real motivation, intentionally or not. Your suggestions accomplish the same ends the author seems to seek, without the added venom and spite. Sad that people can’t be well intentioned without being vindictive.
BC Gun control advocates run across a wide spectrum. I own guns, so your assumption that my goal is to humiliate myself is incorrect. However, I do feel that our system, while pumping more and more weapons into ciculation, has no mechanism by which victims of gun violence can be COMPENSATED. This system would create a pool to do so and mechanisms for managing who ends up in possession of the more powerful weapons. Like auto insurance, it would provide protection for responsible gun owners and non gun owners against “accidents” and unlike car insurance it would be designed specially… Read more »
I’m not opposed to a mechanism by which innocent victims of gun violence can be compensated, but I’m not sure that I like the idea of the insurance industry handling it. In my experience, the insurance industry compensates itself, leaving victims in the lurch. I’d also be interested to know just how many victims of gun violence are “innocent.” Certainly the children and staff from Sandy Hook and Aurora were innocent, but it’s my suspicion that they represent the minority. I’ve spent nearly 20 years in EMS and have seen hundreds of shootings. I’d estimate less than 5% of non-suicides… Read more »
I’m sorry to be a stick in the mud here, but anti-government paranoia is no basis for crafting national policy. So far, guns are not being confiscated. But people are being slaughtered. Avoiding any effort to address the epidemic of gun violence in America because you fear some kind of gun confiscation is just an excuse to avoid collective responsibility.
I think you should also attend the National Rifle and Pistol Matches at Camp Perry Ohio, next August, and see what kind of rifles they are using for target shooting.
They can juggle dynamite if they like. They just need to insure that when things go very very wrong that others are not obligated to pay for the damage done. Where does it end this idea that people should be able to shoot off whatever level of weapon they like? Surface to air missiles? What? As a society we get to collectively choose what we accept as reasonable levels of personal expression. We do it in all other arenas. Why should guns be immune? Some people are going to have to accept some limitations on their personal ballistic appetites in… Read more »
You only need to buy liability insurance for your car if you drive it on public highways. Following your reasoning, only people with concealed carry permits would need insurance.
There are so many problems with this proposal. First: a very brief rant. Mark, you are just a tool of Big Insurance! (Okay, got that out of the way.) Of course insurance companies would love this idea because it makes money for them. But, after that, you run into problems. While we are required to have auto insurance, it is a crime to drive without it. Who is likely hit most with criminal charges based upon the failure to have insurance? Probably minorities. This, too, would further criminalize those communities. Understanding this reality, insurance companies will also sell you an… Read more »
Jut, Most folks who can afford these kinds of weapons have some resources. But this isn’t a class issue. Rich and poor alike die in these mass shootings. That being said, poor folks have to buy food. Their not going to be disproportionally hurt by this issue. Auto insurance does not cover intentional acts yes. But this insurance pool is not about “fixing” damage to the shooter or their possessions. It will not benefit assault weapon owners. (Unless it soothes collective guilt by offering concrete support to victims.) Its about creating a pool to compensate those survivors who are hurt… Read more »
I absolutely support the idea of requiring gun owners (and I am one) to insure each and every gun they own with no exemptions for collectors.
ln theory this sounds good, but I see a lot of problems. As a prospective initiative it might be able to be enforced in some way, but what about all those assault style weapons already out there. How do you compell people to purchase insurance for them. And what if a guy who owns nothing, except perhaps an assault style weapon doesn’t buy the insurance, if he were to be sued what would you recover from him. Nothing, because he has nothing. You analogize it to auto insurance. Do you know how many people are driving around without auto insurance?… Read more »
ln theory this sounds good, but I see a lot of problems. As a prospective initiative it might be able to be enforced in some way, but what about all those assault style weapons already out there. How do you compell people to purchase insurance for them. And what if a guy who owns nothing, except perhaps an assault style weapon doesn’t buy the insurance, if he were to be sued what would you recover from him. Nothing, because he has nothing. You analogize it to auto insurance. Do you know how many people are driving around without auto insurance?… Read more »
P.S. I don’t think whoever is calling this a “market driven solution” understands what that term means. If the only reason such a “market” comes into existence is because some people used legislation to create a threat of punishment by government to force it down other “consumers” throats, that is not “market driven”.
I think the insurance industry would beg to differ. And making people responsible for the impact of their choices is a bedrock American value.
In America, if you own a car, you must buy insurance. Why? Because cars can kill people. Why not the same with being a person? After all, you don’t need any weapon to kill people. This would create a pool to pay for the damage done when people commit violent crimes. Why should guns be singled out?
Not guns, Kirsten. Assault rifles. They are a very specific class of guns.
Also, people don’t need to drive cars. So, if you want one, you need to insure it.
People don’t need to own assault weapons, so if you want one, you need to insure it.
People however do need people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhOap2Vldaw