I write this as my home town of Chicago passes a grim milestone: 500 shooting deaths. Although the national attention on handgun violence may have averted from the horrific slaughter in Newtown, Connecticut, it's still a daily curse in most cities.
But we can't be bamboozled into thinking nothing can be done. Plenty can be accomplished and we should dedicate ourselves to finding some remedies. Gun liability insurance is one approach.
First of all, the esteemed British business journal The Economist has endorsed the concept, which I first wrote about nearly a year ago. Here's a summary of their appraisal of the idea:
"It's an idea that seems to be gathering a bit of steam. At Forbes.com, John Wasik lays out the logic behind treating firearm deaths as a market externality to be compensated via insurance, as we do with cars (here they quote me): "Those most at risk to commit a gun crime would be known to the actuaries doing the research for insurers... An 80-year-old married woman in Fort Lauderdale would get a great rate. A 20-year-old in inner-city Chicago wouldn’t be able to afford it.
A 32-year-old man with a record of drunk driving and domestic violence would have a similar problem." Robert Cyran and Reynolds Holding write that mandatory liability insurance is a measure that could pass Supreme Court muster where other restrictions might fail: "[T]here’s a strong argument that damage caused by firearms gives the government a 'compelling interest' to require insurance, the test for infringing a constitutional right."
Also urging more discussion on the proposal was the conservative National Review online:
"One concern is that this proposal might make firearms prohibitively expensive for certain kinds of people, e.g., men under the age of 35. Over time, underwriting would presumably grow more sophisticated, thus protecting the interests of responsible gun owners. Regardless, Wasik’s idea merits further discussion."
In the interim, I've presented the proposal to a room full of lawyers; both of my senators, including top Democrat Dick Durbin (D-IL); my congressional representative (Joe Walsh, at the moment); my state representative; Ill. Gov. Pat Quinn; Ill. Attorney General Lisa Madigan; the League of Women Voters; the leadership of the House Progressive caucus and people in my political network.
While I think that insurance is one route among many -- and it's certainly an imperfect approach -- my aim is to start a national discussion to see if it's possible.
I think we should use markets to price the risk without butting up against the 2nd amendment. There are no prohibitions or confiscations involved. A tax would pay for administration and recordkeeping. And the insurance companies would price the risk according to age, personal history, location and other factors. The process would be fully privatized.
In talking to people across the country and viewing comments on this blog, here are some legitimate questions and possible directions to take:
* Okay, so you make people buy liability insurance. What about the gangbangers and criminals who obtain the guns illegally?
This will still be a problem, but since the purchaser and seller must buy the insurance, it may cut down on "straw" sales. A tax on sales would also pay for better administration and tracking.
* There is no federal regulation of insurance, so what do you want Congress to do?
Congress still has the power to tax. It can tax every transaction and fund better enforcement of existing gun laws and weapons/ammunition tracking. If we can put in microchips to track dogs -- my pooch has one -- we can certainly do this with guns and ammo to make them traceable. The current laws are full of loopholes that need to be closed. I would surmise that if liability legislation gains any traction, it will have to happen on the state level. State insurance departments and industry lobbyists would then need to get behind it. There's also tens of billions of dollars of premium and renewal income associated with this approach, so it's in their best interests to pursue.
* But aren't you prohibiting the sale of weapons and won't that result in a 2nd amendment challenge?
Not necessarily. Like insuring any other form of property -- cars, homes, jewelry -- you can buy as many guns as you want. No restrictions. You'll just need to insure them. There are plenty of legal precedents. Most states require that you have vehicle insurance. Most mortgage sellers mandate that you have homeowner's insurance. You need dram shop insurance for a liquor license. You need all sorts of liability insurance to sell stepladders and run businessses. Why not require the same approach for guns, which pose plenty of social and economic liability?
7)
Lets not stop at guns. Lets have every parent that has a child carry additional insurance for the cost to help raise that child and repair damage that thay kid will do during his or her first 18 years. Right now my tax dollars go to pay for grafitti vandalism of all kinds, theft through my insurance premiums their scooling etc. I dont have kids and I dont want to pay for this any more. So if you want to force insurance on gun owners, lets not stop there.
Insurance for guns would certainly be welcomed by the insurance industry. No doubt gun-sellers could also act as agent and make up for any losses in gun sales by commissions on insurance. But:
A man insane enough to kill strangers can be rich or poor. The extra expense of insuring his weapons would not stop a killer from buying guns to kill people. Most mass-killers include themselves in the massacre -- and a man who intends to die along with his victims will not be dissuaded from the purchase of firearms by the costs of insurance.
I can see that insurance profits might be useful in providing compensation to the families of the killed. But is the State not responsible for the safety of its citizens? Why buy insurance to cover the failings of the state? If the governing authorities are intent on prevention rather than compensation, they have the means to ban the weapons tomorrow.
I think this is right. For the mentally insane, the cost of obtaining insurance is unlikely to deter them from obtaining the weapons. Furthermore, it strikes me that many of these crimes are committed by individuals who were not the licensed purchasers-of-record of the firearms they used--Newtown and Columbine being cases in point. This undermines both the insurance-as-deterrent argument, as well as the potential efficacy of a broader system of background checks. How purchased guns are secured by their licensed owners, and the liability of those owners who fail to secure their weapons, appears to go unaddressed by this and other existing policy recommendations.
It would take more than commission on insurance for the gun manufacturers and sellers to go quietly and the power of the gun lobby is not a myth. But more problematic than the intransigents in the multi-billion dollar gun industry are the psychopaths and mentally deranged at large who are finding it hard to get to grips with the simple idea that firearms have become much less desirable since they became so darn hard to get ahold of. Young gang members everywhere will no doubt willingly except defeat and commit less crime because their overheads have decreased.
On the other hand .... The microchips will be removed or deactivated, the guns will enter the booming black market, there will be increased levels of crime and disorder as history shows there usually is when well-meaning legislators attempt to civilise the criminal classes and we will see more mass-shootings, not less, as guns become not merely dangerous toys to alienated outsiders but the ultimate symbols of defiance. And expect another Waco or two when the ATF begin their crackdown. The market principle here appears to be a loss to everyone except the insurer. Business as usual, therefore.
You can own a car without being required by law to purchase insurance for it. If you never drive it on public roads then you don't need liability insurance. If you never drive the car then you don't need liability insurance. The auto manufacturer don't need to purchase insurance for what might happen with the operation of the vehicle after you are the owner for it. So, I think to compare auto ownership and operator insurance to a gun is unfair but would properly would mean that you only need insurance if you use the gun and only if you use it on public property.
Sorry if I appear to be bullying on you. One last thing and I'll shut up, I promise. I don't intend to aggravate you.
I need to read again to see how insurance raises funds with tax revenue because I lost focus on that point. A ornery and stubborn problem I have with the whole idea of "sin" taxes (and that is how I view your words when I see you said the tax goes to administration and record keeping) is why somebody should pay taxes to be forgiven by society for doing something that isn't wrong. Especially if you would never sell the item to collect the tax in the first place in circumstances where you thought the buyer was intending to do something wrong. You sin tax a drinker so he pays to be forgiven by society for getting drunk. You sin tax a smoker so he can be forgiven by society for smoking. So a sin tax on arms will allow society to forgive what exactly?
I think Americans would lose rights, pay more taxes, and then continue to watch these events haunt us again. Are we supposed to feel comfort because we paid our taxes for it to be allowed to happen again? Or would all these measures be repealed and rights restored when it proves to be cosmetic and ineffective?
While I agree with your point about a market-based approach to pricing the risk of gun ownership into it through insurance, I believe that insurance should not be mandatory, but rather an optional mitigative control that can be purchased if the gun owner wants to buy it. I don't believe in principle of forcing people to buy a product if they believe it is unnecessary, and they are willing to shoulder the personal and financial burden of maintaining their dangerous goods themselves.
Would I buy insurance for my guns, yep. But I don't believe the rural guy who wants to own a mini-14, which is still as good a semi-automatic rifle to take to battle as the current ones (if you are right handed anyway), but is also basically just maintained for hunting by him and he happens to be 27 years old and has a single DUI, should be priced out of the market for gun ownership, or branded a criminal for not buying insurance for it.
Basically, mandatory makes the whole thing a big insurance scheme that will be rorted by the same people who rort every other mandatory insurance scheme in the USA.