Gun Liability Insurance?

[Duck Fallas 209]

While I don't think that this would make a difference in gun violence, at the very least it should cause gun owners to think twice about how they handle their weapons: (this may be better posted in the P&R section)

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/01/31/170700177/should-gun-owners-have-to-buy-liability-insurance

 

Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance?

by Caitlin Kenney

January 31, 2013 5:00 AM January 31, 2013

 

Listen to the StoryMorning Edition

3 min 30 sec PlaylistDownloadTranscript

 

George Frey/Getty Images Note: We originally published a version of this post a few weeks ago. We are republishing it now to coincide with our story airing today on Morning Edition.

All kinds of proposals to reduce gun violence have been floated recently. One idea that has gotten the attention of economists is liability insurance. Most states require car owners to have liability insurance to cover damages their vehicles cause to others; some economists think we should require the same of gun owners.

We reached out to a few economists to get their thoughts.

Justin Wolfers, professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, wrote:

The real problem with gun ownership is that they involve "externalities," which is economist-speak for the fact that your gun may be used to hurt others. For instance, when Nancy Lanza purchased her Bushmaster AR-15, she probably weighed the benefits of owning the gun — the joy of ownership — with the price (about $800). But it's unlikely she considered the loss, pain and grief that might follow if it were used by her son to kill 26 innocents. When people fail to consider the broader social costs of choices like buying a gun, they're more likely to do them, and society suffers.

 

The economic answer is simple: Make potential gun owners take account of these potential social costs. One way to do this would be to charge an annual license fee for each gun you keep. Research by economists Phil Cook and Jens Ludwig suggests that the typical social cost of one more gun-owning household is somewhere between $100 and $1,800 per year. While that's a wide range, if we set a gun ownership license fee this high, it would force gun owners to face the true social costs of their choices, which would lead many fewer to buy guns.

 

Another even more powerful approach is to recognize that the problem isn't guns per se, but gun violence. Thus, instead of taxing guns, we should tax gun violence. Basically, this is the same as saying that we should make gun owners liable for any damage their guns do. Not only would this discourage some people from buying guns, it would lead those who do keep guns to be more careful with how they're stored. Indeed, greater care would surely have kept Adam Lanza out of his mother's cache. The problem, though, is that Nancy Lanza is neither with us to pay the damages her gun caused, nor could she afford to pay for the enormous damage her gun wrought in Newtown. And so the only way this solution works is if guns required mandatory liability insurance, much as we force car owners to buy insurance for the damage their machines wreak.

 

It's the sort of careful solution that would enable people who enjoy hunting to continue with their passions, but also push them to take the sorts of precautions that we all wish the Lanza household had taken. If the gun lobby were smart, and if they really are interested in being socially responsible while keeping their weapons, they would be pushing hard for this sort of policy.

Next, Russ Roberts, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and host of EconTalk:

Is it a good idea to require gun owners to purchase liability insurance that would cover damages caused by the guns they own? In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, such policies seem like nothing more than common sense. The cost of the insurance would deter some from owning guns or at least from owning an arsenal, as the cost of insurance would presumably rise with the size of one's collection. And there is a certain logic to requiring insurance. When a person purchases a gun, she may not consider the possible harm that might come to others from the eventual use of the gun. Adding the cost of insurance might make the purchaser bear the full cost of the gun in the future, which could easily exceed the purchase itself. After all, registering a car requires insurance on the grounds that cars can cause involuntary harm to others. The insurance forces the driver to bear those costs that might come to pass that are borne by others in an accident.

 

But the logic is not quite as neat as it might appear. Many people already buy and own guns illegally without license or registration. Adding the cost of insurance would further discourage honest gun ownership. That would make matters worse, not better. And is it so obvious that all guns are harmful to others and that gun ownership should be made more expensive to every owner? When an honest, law-abiding citizen uses a gun in self-defense, it often protects those nearby who are unarmed. Perhaps gun ownership should be subsidized for honest people. I don't think this is a good idea, but raising the cost of gun ownership, particularly for good and honest people who are likely to use a gun only in self-defense, is not a free lunch.

 

What is really behind the call for liability insurance is the natural urge to make it harder for people to own guns. Such a law might do some good if it made dishonest and violent people less likely to own guns. But liability insurance makes gun ownership more expensive for honest, law-abiding people while encouraging dishonest and dangerous people to own guns in ways we cannot see.

And, Robert Frank, professor of economics at Cornell University:

Gun ownership, even in the hands of responsible people, increases the risk of death and serious injury to others. In cases involving multiple deaths, few gun owners could afford to compensate victims' families for their losses, just as most automobile owners couldn't afford to compensate the families of accident victims. With automobiles, we require all vehicle owners to carry liability insurance. A similar approach would help with firearms.

 

Nothing in the constitution grants people the right to expose others to serious risk without compensation. Insurance sellers are skillful at estimating the risks posed by drivers with specific characteristics, and we could expect them to be similarly skillful at assessing the risks posed by gun owners. Requiring liability insurance isn't a total solution to the problem of excessive risk, either for autos or for guns. But in both cases, it's a positive step.

 

thoughts? Comments?

[Thanatos 2,847]

Research by economists Phil Cook and Jens Ludwig suggests that the typical social cost of one more gun-owning household is somewhere between $100 and $1,800 per year. While that's a wide range, if we set a gun ownership license fee this high, it would force gun owners to face the true social costs of their choices, which would lead many fewer to buy guns.

 

I call bullshit x 1,000,000.

 

What the hell kind of research is the "typical social cost?" That is the biggest load of BS I've heard in a long time.

 

Gun liability insurance is a dumb idea, sorry. The cars analogy doesn't work either, given that if someone steals your car, you are not liable for the damages. Your insurance may end up paying for it, yes, but you are not the one at fault and rates do not go up or anything.

 

I can't even believe someone is seriously suggesting we make someone liable for damages caused by an item that was stolen from them.

 

This would do nothing, really, IMO.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Thanatos19

[oochymp 2,393]

And is it so obvious that all guns are harmful to others and that gun ownership should be made more expensive to every owner? When an honest, law-abiding citizen uses a gun in self-defense, it often protects those nearby who are unarmed. Perhaps gun ownership should be subsidized for honest people. I don't think this is a good idea, but raising the cost of gun ownership, particularly for good and honest people who are likely to use a gun only in self-defense, is not a free lunch.

This is the issue I take with this idea, and it came to mind when I was about two paragraphs in so I was glad to see the article address it, even if it was only in a cursory fashion.

 

Insurance, at its core, is about distributing risk, so take car insurance as an example because that's what the article mentions and, like the gun insurance proposal it attaches mandatory insurance to the purchase of a good. In buying insurance, there's a presumption that everyone is at risk to have an accident, and even if it's not your fault (mechanical failure, another car crosses into your lane, you know what I'm talking about) you need insurance to cover at least the initial expenses before you can get a lawsuit through to transfer the cost to the truly responsible party. With car ownership you can pretty well estimate the distinct risk of any individual based on all sorts of criteria (driving history, age, etc.) but with gun ownership there's no easy calculus. It's impossible to determine the difference between someone who's just going to use their gun for self defense and the occasional trip to a shooting range and someone who's going to use their gun to turn the local mall into their shooting range. So you end up charging them both the same for insurance in order to spread the risk and heavily discouraging the guy who wants the gun to defend his house and family while the guy who's looking to shoot up the mall thinks he's getting a deal because when he goes and shoots up a mall insurance will cover the damages. Now, the details clearly would help some of that, car insurance is getting better with safe driver discounts and the like, gun insurance could have something similar to give a break to people who are just using their gun at the shooting range, but it wouldn't help with the initial costs, I'm also sure there would be exceptions if the owner of the gun (and holder of the insurance policy) used his gun in a clearly dangerous manner (willful or grossly negligent damage in legal terms) but it would still take a while to get all of that in place.

 

The better mechanism IMO is criminal liability, if your gun is used in a crime then you can be held criminally liable, but I'm pretty sure those laws are already on the books in most jurisdictions, so really this whole discussion isn't really necessary

[PackIsBack 124]

I think it's a good idea. If one of the minimal requirements for having a car is to have liability as part of your car insurance plan then I think the same can be applied to a gun. Just like having a car, even if you're of age it's still a privilege to own one and be able to operate it. Just like a car a gun can be destructive and hurt someone else. I think it's in the gun owner's best interest to have insurance against accidents and tragedies not only for themselves but for the sake of protecting others in case of injury. With this being paired with gun training and a background check I think this could be a positive step in the right direction.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

This is absolutely the stupidest fucking thing I have heard in a long time. we should just nuke ourselves and start over. . I would be willing to die to watch these fools go first.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Ngata_Chance

[Thanatos 2,847]

I think it's a good idea. If one of the minimal requirements for having a car is to have liability as part of your car insurance plan then I think the same can be applied to a gun. Just like having a car, even if you're of age it's still a privilege to own one and be able to operate it. Just like a car a gun can be destructive and hurt someone else. I think it's in the gun owner's best interest to have insurance against accidents and tragedies not only for themselves but for the sake of protecting others in case of injury. With this being paired with gun training and a background check I think this could be a positive step in the right direction.

 

It's a totally different thing.

 

If my car is stolen from me, so long as I report the theft, I am NOT liable for damages caused by my car.

 

Unless this legislation is only meant to be enforced if you loan your gun to someone else and then they use to hurt/kill someone or something, the analogy of car insurance doesn't hold up.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Thanatos19