By which I don't mean insurance to pay for replacing stolen firearms, but liability insurance for damage that might be done by same.
I've seen a lot of suggestions about mandating this at some level as a way of (a) paying for the damages done by people irresponsibly using (storing, playing, loaning) their guns, but (and less emphasized) (b) reducing gun ownership by increasing the costs associated with it.
The below article makes a good case, in general, for (a). I find (b) a bit more problematic, if for no other reason than it's a regressive cost on the poor. Someone middle class or upper class or super-upper-class can easily afford such insurance. I doubt it would be by gun, so it wouldn't directly impact the folks who buy and keep dozens of the things. It might encourage people to be more responsible with how guns are stored (stolen guns had better be from a broken-into gun safe or your next policy will be a lot more expensive; ditto for what happens to your rates when little Billy finds the loaded gun in the desk drawer and shoots his friend with it), but it if means that poorer people simply can't afford the insurance, I doubt it will dramatically affect gun violence (or coverage for same) in those communities — people take the chance of driving without insurance all the time, and it's a lot easier for someone to hide an uninsured gun than an uninsured automobile.
So, yeah, I think there are some potential benefits (under (a)) to a mandatory liability / damages insurance for gun ownership. But it's hardly a magic bullet.
(The same problem applies for the parallel suggestions that we simply tax guns at a really high rate. That won't stop Joe One-Percent, or even Suzie Fifty-Percent from buying a gun or twenty if they want one, but it will encourage a huge trade in tax-free black market pistols, or else de facto price guns out of the hands of a substantial proportion of the population. And, sooner or later, someone is going to suggest subsidizing the purchase of guns for poor folks who need them but who can't afford them under the current laws — at which point the heads of both liberals and conservatives will blow up.)
Embedded Link
The Case for Firearms Insurance
We require automobile owners to carry vehicle insurance. It’s time we did the same for firearms. The tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut are in the news this week…
Google+: View post on Google+
Very nice piece. I hadn't thought about this, but after reading, I pretty much agree entirely.
So, basically, the idea isn't to curtail or stop any of these shootings, but to compensate families affected by such senseless acts by taking the money from responsible citizens who are exercising their second amendment rights.
"There would be some amount of government regulation needed"
But, of course there would.
Mark,
By definition these so called responsible gun owners and sellers have been responsible for all gun related violence either by allowing their guns to be stolen or using them to unlawfully themselves. How do you think they get on the street in the first place? I agree that mandatory liability insurance just like for auto owners is a good first step. In addition to banning the mentally ill from purchasing guns, and criminalizing the possession of unlicensed and uninsured firearms. As well as other sensible measurements to curb gun violence, I have not specifically mentioned. Quite frankly if you are in a wealthy neighborhood like myself there be few people that will have incentive to have illegal firearms. And my family and I will be a lot safer once we have a private third party agency with a financial interest in knowing who is a high risk gun owner. We may have the right to bear arms but every right comes with responsibilities and the people through the legislature have right to determine those responsibilities. So quit pretending you are the next victim, I’m not buying those crocodile tears.
As I said, +Mark Means, there are two basic ideas. You zeroed in on the first one (which is fine, because I have my doubts around the second).
The idea, as the article explains, is that many of the costs of of firearms, including irresponsible or antisocial use, are already picked up by society as a whole, or else by the victims. So, yes, the idea is that those who choose to introduce an additional risky element to society should bear the cost of doing so, whether or not it is a right or not. Just as those who choose to own an automobile, even for clear and defensible and even laudable reasons, bear the risk of their doing so.
That calls to mind another topic of discussion, but it's probably going to range broadly enough that I'm going to handle it as a separate post.
Look at it the same way you do car insurance: some people are perfect drivers, but most people make mistakes, and those mistakes have a high cost to everyone. Doesn't it make sense that, since the cost is largely voluntary or a lifestyle choice, that the one introducing the additional risk should be obligated to handle the cost, rather than others who had no part in that decision? Remember that insurance is strictly financial. The victim's family still bears the cost of injury or death of a loved one. Why should we add insult to injury by including the financial burden of expensive medical treatment or a funeral to their woes?
The story as well notes that a lot of the expenses end up being born through government medical payments, so it's not just the victims dealing with these (financial) costs, but society as a whole.
The problem is it isn't going guarantee that ppl have such insurance. They will pay for a month or whatever to get said firearm…then let it lapse and only buy it when they need proof. I know this because I know many many people who do the same thing with their car insurance. Hell, I had a friend who bragged about forging her insurance card to get past inspection…
If they want to help these people, they need to HELP people and stop cutting social programs and stop making mental illness a life choice and make it a disease that way people will be more likely to get help and less likely to hide their issues.
Unlike driving, owning a gun is provided for under the constitution. It's a right. I'm not sure how you could penalize someone who didn't purchase the 'insurance' by taking away that right.
+Sandy L. That I agree with. This is precisely why restrictions on sales transactions and liability for misuse by an unauthorized person (unless that weapon is reported stolen) are far more effective ways to address the issue. The problem is, much like the healthcare debate, the people tend to compromise on solutions that offer corporate profits, even if those solutions are worse and they claim to hate corperations.
+Mark Means No right is unlimited. Your right to free speech ends when exceeding that right directly inflicts or threatens to inflict undue harm on another citizen. Similar limitations have been imposed on other rights for far worse reasons than guns. That said, due to the economic discrimination created by such a possibility, I also agree that we should directly restrict sales: background checks, mandatory waiting periods, and banning weapons whose only practical purpose is mass murder.
Dave notes it, but I wish I had emphasized it more: We already pay a huge price for the medical costs of firearms injury, because these occur primarily to the uninsured.
+Gary Roth Well, we're not talking about the right to bear arms in an unlimited capacity….we're talking about it at it's base level.
As in…if you don't buy "insurance", you can't own a gun.
The data suggests that faster guns are directly related to body counts. So it wouldn't be unreasonable to insist on all guns being registered, some kind of liability if the gun is unsecured, and on that liability scaling up especially large for assault weapons designed to kill a lot of people. http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/saletan-one-lesson-from-sandy-hook-the-faster-the-weapon-the-higher-the-body-count-1.4340984
+George Wiman has the right idea.
+Mark Means wrote> "As in…if you don't buy "insurance", you can't own a gun."
I think you were responding to Gary, but I want to be clear: That is not my suggestion.
+Dan Eastwood yes, that was in response to Gary's post, not yours.
I think the whole situation would be better served in the prevention of the problem, not in "penalizing" people afterwards.
Until we repeal the 2nd Amendment, it is a pointless discussion since the SCotUS will just toss any law out as unconstitutional.
We as a nation had just better come to accept every two monthes some crazy white guy is going to go and kill a bunch of people and there is nothing we can do about it because everyone has the right to bare arms.
+Mark Means The second amendment has already been disestablished. Some aspects of it remains, sure… but if you look at the text it actually says "…shall not be infringed." That period at the end makes it universal. It means nobody should be able to stop you from bringing your "arms" anywhere on federal or state ground.
If going to a Senate Hearing, according to the constitution, you ought to be able to bring your shotgun with you…
But that's not the case, is it?
That's why I say the 2nd has been disestablished already.
I hadn't thought of it that way, +Andreas Geisler. Apparently it's OK to carry a gun into a grade school, but not into the halls of Congress.
Would it be cynical of me to suggest the a mass shooting in the halls of congress would be much more likely to spur change than a shooting at a school?
Answering my own question: Yes, yes it is.
If you'll recall, there was a shooting in the halls of Congress. The answer: more metal detectors in the halls of Congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_shooting_incident_(1998)
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Not part of the "well-regulated militia"? No right to keep and bear arms. Seems clear to me.
I had forgotten, shame on me. Thanks Dave.
+Mark Means – If we could prevent the misuse of guns — leaving them where kids can find them, using them in the heat of passion, using them for criminal activities, using them when you go off your cork and decide to strike back against the entire world — then I'd agree.
But that's like saying, "It's not the fever, it's the infection you have to fight." Which has some fundamental truth to it (and long-term necessity), but a high enough fever can do a lot of damage even if you're busy tackling the base infection.
Treat the symptoms and the cause.
That said, what would you do to "prevent the problem" (or problem_s_, since it's not solitary).
+George Wiman, +Andreas Geisler, I wonder if they get away with that because it's federal territory (DC), not a state (that can pass a law allowing such things).
That said, I have to wonder how many of those concealed-carry-on-campuses states also allow folks to wander in and out of the statehouse packing.
+Scott Randel, unfortunately, SCOTUS has decided the obvious meaning is not the actual meaning, but that arms-bearing is an individual right, not a militia right.
I'm not saying I'm against any type of training or preventative measures to ensure better gun safety. I wouldn't have a problem with taking some sort of class or test to make sure gun owners are properly trained in the handling and storage of their weapon. But, like the driving test, knowing and doing are two different things.
I don't have any hard and fast solutions, but the one thing I know that I don't think is the solution, is trying to make guns unavailable to law abiding citizens. You can scoff, roll your eyes, or whatever, but it's a fact that if someone wants to purchase a gun, illegally, they can do it with little trouble. And, yes, I am speaking from experience.
If you're "anti-gun", that's fine…..don't own one. The rest of us probably feel a bit safer knowing we can.
“…SCOTUS has decided the obvious meaning is not the actual meaning, but that arms-bearing is an individual right, not a militia right.”
Really? Have they explained why that language was included if it’s meaningless?
@Avo – The case — District of Columbia v. Heller — is gone into more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Per the court syllabus of the decision, focusing on that point (via the Wikipedia page on the Second Amendment):
Interestingly, Scalia (ugh) wrote in the majority opinion:
So it’s not an absolute right, but there are some general limits on what you can do to restrict it.
Interestingly, for those pushing for an assault weapons ban, the Heller case was in part about DC banning handguns. The court ruled that banning a class of arms commonly used (vs unusual) for legal purposes was not constitutional.
+Mark Means, I think you are correct that — for some time to come — the genie is out of that bottle. Even if, somehow, gun purchases were made impossible, there are enough guns in circulation in the US already to satisfy the needs of criminals for a generation. And, yes, the harder you make something like that to obtain, the more of a black market develops (cf. War on Drugs) as long as a supply is available.
On the other hand, given the number of new guns that continue to be purchase — bigger, brighter, and faster-shooting — I think there should be something we can do on the "symptom" end to try to scale back some zany buying near-automatic weapons and unlimited ammo via the Internet.
I should think ownership licenseship, training, testing, should be a minimum — with the goal (per current Constitutional understandings) not to keep people in general from owning firearms, but making sure those who do are knowledgeable of how to minimize the risks associated. (And, to that end, I think that insurance idea is a good one, too.)
Thanks to all (here and else where) for the comments. I am working up a post based on some of the questions and response. But not tonight – must sleep.
@ Avo:
The argument I have heard from rightwingers and rightwing radio is that “Well Regulated” is an Originalist (people like Scalia reading the mind of Madison) meaning
“properly cared for and stocked”, not having to to do with laws.
Again, what is the point of dealing with rightwingers when we can’t even agree the concepts and meanings of words?