Not a new idea, but here's a few further thoughts I've had about it.
1. I don't really think it will make gun owners that much more "responsible," as the article suggests. I mean, they already know guns are dangerous and could kill/hurt others, if they were to be left out negligently. Adding on "and cost higher premiums" isn't going to help bad behavior.
2. I'm not convinced that such insurance should be by gun, vs. by gun owner. Cars get insured by car, not driver, but that's because they, themselves, can take damage. Gun licensing is done by the individual, and arguably such a license should require proof of insurance.
At any rate, non-compliance (having an uninsured gun or gun owner) is going to be a big issue. At a minimum, having an uninsured gun (or having a gun without gun owner insurance) should result in confiscation of the weapon (or all such weapons), plus some other punishment.
3. The ballistics angle here is an interesting one. The insurance company might then require that, if a gun is stolen, a police report be filed (in order for the liability coverage under the policy to be eliminated). If the gun is used in a crime and it wasn't reported stolen, the insurance company remains on the hook (and will doubtless pump up the premiums or deny future coverage).
4. If done by individual weapon (or if the ballistics requirement comes into play), it does end up acting as a gun registration law (albeit privately managed). I'm not sure how comfortable I am at building that functionality into private business (let alone our insurance industry.
5. One consideration is if the prices of premiums are high, it could mean that guns could only be owned by the wealthy (or at least the non-poor — including rural poor that might have the greatest arguable need for hunting and protection). If so, I could see the NRA pushing for government-subsidized gun insurance for those who could not otherwise afford it, which would cause a few heads to explode on the Left and the Right.
6. One thing this would do is identify the monetary costs — in terms of death and injury and property damage — of firearms.
I'm not convinced it's the best idea, but it's certainly an interesting thought experiment.
Embedded Link
Mandatory Gun Insurance – A Practical Plan To Change America’s Cowboy Gun Culture
Could a national mandate for gun liability insurance bring market forces to bear to reduce gun proliferation? Here’s a proposal that would change the Wild West nature of America’s gun culture.
Google+: View post on Google+
But gun ownership is a Right. As opposed to all those luxuries. Such as healthcare, a living wage (“if you aren’t rich, its your own fault” seems to be a repetitive jibe in any comment on articles about the’1%’)
Of course it doesn’t help that the 2nd amendment is so badly written (or at least if the so claimed intent is accurate). Here’s the clue, Yanks. You don’t apply the spirit or the intent of a law. These are open to interpretation. You apply what the law says. As the 2nd stands, it is illegal to deny ownership of a gun to a criminal, even one inside prison.
Maybe before any law is sent to the President it should be put past a group of wargamers/roleplayers, especially power-gamers.
Or, @LH, has Lyndon Johnson (a legislator’s legislator) put it, “You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.”