Insurance vs. Laws and Regulations

The laws and regulations we use for gun safety in our country have provided only limited relief from the high level of gun injury and death. While they need to be extended and improved, other ways of protecting people are also important. One that would be extremely helpful is to require insurance that protects victims of gun violence.

Laws and Regulations

For decades there has been a war between those who want reasonable regulation of gun ownership and use and those who feel that any restrictions applied to guns are the start of a slippery slope leading to total gun confiscation. The result has been a patchwork that provides substantial impediments to responsible gun ownership as the pool of irresponsible owners and dangerous guns has increased exponentially.

The basic tool that has been used is regulation of guns, of gun ownership and of the transfer of guns. In some places such as Connecticut, New York and California the regulations and laws have been quite strict and have resulted in comparatively much lower levels of gun related injury and death than in other states. But in other states and on a national level the political will to impose limitations has not existed. The back and forth power struggle in legislatures and in Congress has resulted in a web of specific requirements which are effective where they apply but have huge gaps which are immediately exploited.

One important example is the efforts to prohibit “assault rifles.” It is not easy to define a clear line between weapons designed for mass killing in military situations and weapons designed for traditional hunting roles. Interchangeable magazines, grips or handles or ergonomic devices, semi-automatic fire, dimensions and weight all have a role. Each of these characteristics can be claimed to useful for either type of weapon. When regulations have been adopted, weapons makers can produce new designs which technically follow the rules; but which are intended to restore the dangers that the rules were adopted to eliminate.

It takes decades to reach the agreement necessary to adjust the regulations. In the meantime, the situations change; the deaths and injuries continue. Laws and regulations are a necessary backbone of the provision of gun safety in a society, but they are not flexible enough to do an adequate job. They must work by explicitly defining the weapons, actions and situations covered. The result is either approximate and filled with gaps or unnecessarily restrictive.

Mandatory Insurance

An insurance mandate would provide a completely different channel for reducing gun carnage. A system of insurance that provides benefits to gun victims would be good because of the provision of the benefits and it would work provide safety in many ways. High-risk weapons and high-risk owners would be discouraged by the costs and standards imposed by insurers. A culture of responsibility would be encouraged. Insurers would be motivated to research gun violence and find ways to fight it.

Insurers can handle the complex effects of the many combinations of risk factors much more flexibly than laws and regulations which are generally limited to constraining risks one factor at a time. Gun owners would be more willing to accept inspections and reporting requirements from private parties that they choose and employ than from governmental authorities. From the viewpoint of the public, when an insurer “puts their money where their mouth is” and issues a policy then there can be confidence that the combination of weapon, owner and circumstance is reasonably safe. From the viewpoint of a potential gun owning insurance buyer, refusal from one insurer leaves a possibility that another insurer will sell a suitable policy. If no insurer will take the case, then the risk is probably unreasonable.