Require Liability Insurance on the Most Dangerous Guns
All gun owners claim that they are responsible, and all guns are initially purchased from manufacturers through legal means. Yet over 31 thousand people die in the US each year of gun-related injuries, and at least twice that many receive non-fatal injuries. In addition to the horror, pain and loss of loved ones, these incidents are estimated to generate over $100BN in economic damage each and every year.
Given the difficulties of controlling firearms through regulatory means, it is unreasonable to assume that meaningful public policies aimed at reducing the risk posed to Americans by the 300 million-plus guns currently in circulation in the US will be successful. Other means must be considered.
Liability insurance is one of the oldest and most well-instantiated means that society has of managing the risk that one person’s private property or behavior may pose to others, or to society at large. Most states, for example, recognize that motor vehicles have the potential to cause harm to others, and that many vehicle-owners do not have the financial means to reimburse others for damage caused by accidents, and therefore require it for use of public roads. It is also required for many kinds of commercial activity in which a mishap might harm innocent people – restaurants and other public accommodations, transportation services, industrial facilities are but a few examples in which liability insurance is used to ensure safety standards and manage risk. Banks generally require insurance in connection with mortgages and other financing activities.
There are a number of discreet and compelling benefits to this system. The most obvious is that people who suffer harm can be made financially whole. But that is only the tip of the iceberg: another, perhaps more important, benefit is that insurance uses the marketplace to draw on a deep well of expertise to determine how risk accrues in a variety of situations. Unlike regulation, which is by its nature a one-size-fits-all mechanism, insurance is inherently adaptable – it harnesses the power and flexibility of the marketplace to assign the appropriate cost to a wide variety of risky situations. In addition, mandatory insurance is so widely applied, and so well-accepted, that it would be extremely difficult to make a 2nd Amendment argument against requiring it for many types of guns. Lastly, requiring insurance for the most dangerous guns would have the effect of enlisting the insurance industry into the public policy debates as a check against the lobbying power of the gun industry fighting firepower with fire, so to speak.
Under this new approach, gun-owners would have a powerful economic incentive to maintain the highest standards of safety. Irresponsible gun owners would find it expensive – perhaps prohibitively so – to indulge in behaviors which create the potential for harm to others, while responsible ones would be rewarded with much lower rates. It would also help curb the toxic practice of ‘straw purchasing’, by imposing costs well in excess of the profits to such buyers, and by creating a paper trail which would make it easy to hold such criminals accountable. It would also provide a brake against the increasingly-common practice of people building private arsenals of high-powered weapons, since the carrying costs would be immense.
This is not a perfect solution. But we believe that it is an artful and effective proposal which would, if nothing else, change the conversation around how to manage the tremendous risk posed to innocent people by those who fail to manage their weapons safely. Lastly, it has the advantage of having the potential to be implemented at the local level: just as local governments can set their own standards for liability insurance, so also could cities, counties and states create their own rules for insuring weapons.
