This diary is a result of feedback from one of my comments earlier today. The idea grew in my head and here we are.
Gun owners need to assume financial liability for their property and how it is used. Requiring guns and their owners be insured could effectively regulate the market for guns and ammunition without doing it explicitly by statute, based on the risks of certain product categories. If no one will insure something, it will effectively be banned. I just wanted to get some thoughts on the subject out in a longer form, so this diary can serve as a space for that.
Please comment and/or recommend so I can do another iteration of this and maybe move it along to a larger audience.
When you buy a gun or ammunition, you should be required by law to assume civil liability for its use. If you can not cover the monetary damages that your property might inflict on others by your own hand or anyone else’s, you should not be able to buy or possess such property.
While this all seems like common sense to me, it surprised me that others aren’t thinking along these lines.
I am not a lawyer. This idea may or may not be able to be implemented on a Federal level, though it may be able to be adjusted to. But I have little doubt that State governments could do it.
The Idea
Just like owning a car or any other potentially dangerous machine, gun owners should be required to carry either insurance or a surety bond to cover the damages to any potential victims of their accidental (or intentional) use.
This idea takes the responsibility of determining who is eligible to own guns and, more importantly, ammunition out of the hands of government for the most part. Instant background checks could be replaced by a letter of guarantee from an insurance company willing to assume liability for this person’s actions. The insurance industry could decide who is trustworthy and cover them for a suitable premium based on the risk.
Mandatory coverage levels should be something along the lines of (up to) $10 million per shooting victim/$100 million per incident (covering all victims and property damage) in liability coverage or bond. These numbers are my own guesstimates of the maximum it might cost to cover anything from minor property damage to surgery, intensive care, permanent disability or, in some cases, dozens of deaths.
The settlement for a victim should consider the damages to an entire generation of their family as they are affected by the shooting as well.
Actual settlements would normally be much lower, but these numbers are considering the liability for a mass murder. Insurance company analysts could come up with more realistic numbers of what actual claims based on actual damages might cost.
This may sound like alot of money but it could be covered by the personal liability portion of most people’s homeowners insurance. Rural and suburban folks with their hunting rifles and simple handguns who have stable employment, no criminal record and something to live for would have no trouble getting this insurance coverage at a fair price if they can pass whatever sanity test their insurance company requires of them.
Allow the free market of the insurance industry to decide who they’re willing to cover and for what types of guns and ammo their policy will cover.
Require an official letter of pre-approval, issued by a bona fide insurance carrier guaranteeing that they have done the due diligence and determined that this potential gun owner is low enough a risk that they are willing to insure their actions and whatever damage this gun may inflict on anyone. Proof of coverage would also be required to purchase ammunition.
If the insurance industry should decide that a given model or design of weapon is un-insurable for private use at any cost, the market for that type of weapon would dry up. Invisible hand of the free market and all that. No legislative action necessary.
If you don’t need to own a gun but want to let off some steam by firing off a few thousand rounds, go to a certified and insured firing range and use one of their automatic weapons on the premisses for a reasonable fee. This could be a fun day out for the whole family, just like Disneyland!
Tracking the sales of Guns and Ammunition
The insurance industry would be permitted, or required, to track all sales of guns and ammunition from factory to consumer and it would be in their interest to do so, keeping very accurate records. The ATF could make sure they comply with any recordkeeping requirements, as they will be compiling the same records for criminal investigations. Maybe they could do a joint effort and split the costs, even.
All guns and ammunition would be required to be serialized and traceable to the purchaser.
All existing guns and ammo would have to be registered with an insurance provider and that company must provide full access to this data to any government agency when requested.
As part of any insurance policy or bond, the insurer would issue a card to their customer to be used when purchasing ammunition for their insured weapon. No ammunition could be sold without recording who bought it.
All sales records would be instantly compiled centrally by the insurance industry and they would work together with any government agency to ensure instant access to these sales records. The insurance company is assuming civil liability for each bullet sold to their gun-owning customers.
Uninsured Guns
Any uninsured gun becomes an illegal gun, subject to confiscation and destruction. There will not be raids and searches for guns and ammo specifically but anyone caught possessing any gun not insured for their personal use will lose it and be fined heavily. Stiffer penalties if that person has a history of violent crime.
Stolen Guns
All gun owners have a responsibility to report a stolen gun or ammunition to their insurance company and, in turn, to the appropriate authorities. Both could be done with one phone call.
Civil liability does not end at the time of theft. It never ends until the gun is recovered. The owner and their insurance company are still liable for whatever damages are caused by a missing or stolen weapon or bullet. They really should consider purchasing gun safes, ya think? The insurer will, no doubt, set some requirements for the secure storage of the weapons.
This also applies at every step in the supply chain. The distribution of guns and ammunition must be insured at every stage against theft or loss and all damages resulting from that theft or loss must be covered.
All reports of theft of any gun or ammunition by the gun owner will be treated as a very high priority theft by law enforcement agencies, much like a stolen car.
Thefts in the distribution network will be investigated similar to thefts of controlled substances in the supply chain for pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals and penalties would be very stiff. Gun dealers who manage to “lose” too much inventory would risk losing their licenses and/or find themselves un-insurable.
Any recovered gun that is registered and insured by someone else will be returned to its rightful owner, provided they can maintain the insurance on it.
Incentive programs (large cash rewards) should be considered to maximize the recovery of stolen weapons. The industry taking on the financial liability will find that this is in their interest. And they would pay for these programs, not taxpayers.
Cancelled policies – Can’t afford the gun anymore?
If your insurance policy is cancelled, you must immediately sell the gun (preferably through a licensed dealer) or give it up to be destroyed. Whoever buys the gun must prove that they are insured to own it immediately. Otherwise, you and your current insurer are responsible for the recovery of the gun and any ammunition. Liability does not end until it is all accounted for and either turned in to any police station to be destroyed or it must be sold legally. If your insurer needs to sue you for the missed premiums, that’s between you and them because neither of you are off the hook for any future civil liability if it is used in a crime. If you fail to pay, the insurer may obtain a court order to confiscate the gun from you very easily. The police may assist in the confiscation and they may charge a hefty fee for doing so, but it is the responsibility of the insurer.
Personal Responsibility. Free Market solution.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, libertarians.
.
Yorkshire man Gary Hyde supplied gun to killer in Dunblane kindergarten massacre. Later set up business supplying arms to the UK Ministry of Defence and the US Pentagon for their arms contract to Iraq and Afghanistan. A regular visitor to US gun shows and undoubtedly a supporter of the 2nd Amendment.
These are some very interesting thoughts on a tricky issue. Shared to my FB-page (Kaare Knudsen – also a pseudonym).
Interesting. I’d rather see the liability placed on the manufacturers, and let them try to get insurance.
But unfortunately that option was already blocked back in the day when the NRA had an office in the White House, along with a board member holding a Senate seat.
Apparently Diane Feinstein and her fellow legislators now regret their deals with the devil. Maybe somehow they could undo what they’ve done.
I’m curious to see how long it will take our media to abandon discussion of this tragedy for another. It is gratifying to finally see people thinking about how to solve this problem.
How long will it take Lindsay Lohan to get drunk and do something stupid?
Well thought out. Minor problem insurance companies wouldn’t want the business — adequate premiums to cover the management costs of the product would be unaffordable for most gun owners. Thus, they would hide their guns and go uninsured.
However, split the insurance liability for guns from insurers acting as enforcers of gun liability insurance and the tracking of these weapons, I can see the outline of something interesting. Just like auto insurance — government can set the minimum financial responsibility requirements for gun owners – $X per person/per incident. Legislation can also require all insurers to include gun owner liability in all auto, homeowner, and rental policies. Skipping the administrative costs to track the guns, etc., the premium cost for gun liability wouldn’t be cheap but it wouldn’t be exorbitant either. The stick to get the gun owners to purchase the insurance would be that the policy for all coverages would be null and void if the gun owner lied in any material way about gun ownership on the insurance application.
Need to add that such gun owner insurance would only apply to registered guns. And failure to register guns owned would also invalidate all coverages on the policy* even if some guns were registered and the insurance were purchased.
*can tweak for non-gun related liability insurance to kick in after the jerk has lost everything.
Or we could take a less libertarian approach and do what Australia did in 1996.
While I’m not sure that all US mass murderers meet the criteria for mental illness, most, if not all, would have been unlikely to pass a “genuine reason” need test. Entirely plausible that Nancy Lanza would never have been able to purchase those guns either.
If we could do what they did in Australia, it would be preferable. If there’s a time to try it, now is that time.
I would also like to see something like a mandatory psychiatric evaluation – and the buyer doesn’t get to shop for the doctor.
Psychology has no evaluation instruments to predict future behavior or identify the forms of mental instability that are predictive of future violent behavior. Most human behaviors are contextual; within a family and the societal culture and its institutions. Plus, those diagnosed as mentally ill are no more prone to murder than those not so diagnosed.
Mental illness is best viewed separately from the incidence of violence in a population if the objective is to reduce gun violence. The rates of mental illness didn’t decline in Australia after guns were severely restricted but gun violence dropped dramatically.