Principles for requiring gun insurance that would protect everyone
A new posting on YouTube by this blog.
For gun insurance to be effective it must be designed for the situation we have with guns. If the wishes of either the NRA which wants guns everywhere or gun control advocates who would have no guns are applied than we would not have effective protection from insurance. This video describes the principles needed.
The posting can be accessed at
Script
If a gun insurance requirement is going to result in a safer society, the insurance has to be tailored to the way that gun ownership works.
There are some important principles that will determine the effectiveness of an insurance system for this purpose.
One is that the insurance should to be designed to protect victims rather than gun owners.
This means that liability insurance is not likely to be effective. Worker’s compensation insurance which makes payments directly to injured parties or provides medical care is a better model.
Even car insurance–which is often structured as liability insurance—in practice usually pays directly to the injured parties.
Insurance which pays for the legal defense of the insurance buyer is of much less use and only pays victims as a last resort.
Even so, pure liability insurance may work to push gun owners for safer practices.
A second reason to pay victims directly is that the owner or shooter’s actions may have a criminal or other serious nature which would block payment as a matter of public policy.
This can prevent coverage in the most egregious cases.
But if the policy pays the victim this isn’t a problem. Many kinds of insurance pay designated types of affected parties for bad acts–even criminal bad acts—by the persons who are required to have insurance.
Another principle is that the insurance should be of a “no-fault” type.
Shootings are messy.
It is often impossible to determine what happened with certainty.
Gun owners and shooters usually claim that a shooting was self-defense OR is an unavoidable accident and that they should not be held to blame.
Working through divergent stories and coming to a determination of responsibility can take years of legal wrangling at great expense. Victims will not have the funds to fight such a battle, and many will simply abandon any hope of getting help.
The currently sold “self-defense” insurance in the marketplace is designed to pay for legal expenses of gun owners and not to pay victims for their losses. If one reads such a policy, it is pretty clear that a requirement that the gun owner pay the victim and that the insurer fund the gun owner’s payment is only a far-fetched hope.
But–the most important reason for “no-fault” is that insurance benefits are needed immediately for medical care for victims and survivors.
A hospital that accepts persons with gunshot wounds will be motivated to take good care if payment is assured—But will be motivated to push the person out the door if it is not.
If the payment can only happen after long court battles with an unpredictable–or sadly a predictable–outcome, then conditions–medical and otherwise–will become worse.
There is a third critical principle for a gun insurance mandate—It’s that the insurance should cover specific guns rather than the shooters or owners.
A large proportion of the carnage are done with the guns in the hands of someone other than an owner that can be required to get insurance. The guns are picked up by someone else in the household
or just visiting or just on the scene. Or–the gun is stolen.
Maybe the owner is irresponsible about storing or protecting the gun. Irresponsibility is a thing that is difficult and slow to determine. Guns, more that almost anything else we have, create risks to the public when their owner loses possession or control. It is important that the public be protected in these cases and that insurance coverage continue.
The needed requirement is simple—an insurers responsibility for a specific weapon should continue until it is covered by a new insurer.
Covering specific guns is similar to our practices for automobile insurance.
Car insurance covers additional drivers who have the permission of the owner to drive–and in many states it is required to protect victims of drivers who do not have permission.
Stolen cars are typically covered at least until the theft is reported.
Stolen guns are easier to hide than stolen cars and are dangerous enough to require more continuance.
In sum, there are many kinds of insurance.
As the dangers of every risk bearing activity are addressed, a specific kind of insurance evolves which helps to mitigate these dangers.
The rules and practices that structure the insuring of an activity are adapted to the needs of that activity. The principles above show the nature of the insurance we need for gun ownership.
There are many details which would have to be worked out as a requirement is developed.
This has taken decades for each case in the past and will take time here. It’s time to get started.
It been done many times before and all the necessary pieces have been used over and over again.
This is just a new combination for a new application.
Principles for requiring gun insurance that would protect everyone
A new posting on YouTube by this blog.
For gun insurance to be effective it must be designed for the situation we have with guns. If the wishes of either the NRA which wants guns everywhere or gun control advocates who would have no guns are applied than we would not have effective protection from insurance. This video describes the principles needed.
The posting can be accessed at
Script
If a gun insurance requirement is going to result in a safer society, the insurance has to be tailored to the way that gun ownership works.
There are some important principles that will determine the effectiveness of an insurance system for this purpose.
One is that the insurance should to be designed to protect victims rather than gun owners.
This means that liability insurance is not likely to be effective. Worker’s compensation insurance which makes payments directly to injured parties or provides medical care is a better model.
Even car insurance–which is often structured as liability insurance—in practice usually pays directly to the injured parties.
Insurance which pays for the legal defense of the insurance buyer is of much less use and only pays victims as a last resort.
Even so, pure liability insurance may work to push gun owners for safer practices.
A second reason to pay victims directly is that the owner or shooter’s actions may have a criminal or other serious nature which would block payment as a matter of public policy.
This can prevent coverage in the most egregious cases.
But if the policy pays the victim this isn’t a problem. Many kinds of insurance pay designated types of affected parties for bad acts–even criminal bad acts—by the persons who are required to have insurance.
Another principle is that the insurance should be of a “no-fault” type.
Shootings are messy.
It is often impossible to determine what happened with certainty.
Gun owners and shooters usually claim that a shooting was self-defense OR is an unavoidable accident and that they should not be held to blame.
Working through divergent stories and coming to a determination of responsibility can take years of legal wrangling at great expense. Victims will not have the funds to fight such a battle, and many will simply abandon any hope of getting help.
The currently sold “self-defense” insurance in the marketplace is designed to pay for legal expenses of gun owners and not to pay victims for their losses. If one reads such a policy, it is pretty clear that a requirement that the gun owner pay the victim and that the insurer fund the gun owner’s payment is only a far-fetched hope.
But–the most important reason for “no-fault” is that insurance benefits are needed immediately for medical care for victims and survivors.
A hospital that accepts persons with gunshot wounds will be motivated to take good care if payment is assured—But will be motivated to push the person out the door if it is not.
If the payment can only happen after long court battles with an unpredictable–or sadly a predictable–outcome, then conditions–medical and otherwise–will become worse.
There is a third critical principle for a gun insurance mandate—It’s that the insurance should cover specific guns rather than the shooters or owners.
A large proportion of the carnage are done with the guns in the hands of someone other than an owner that can be required to get insurance. The guns are picked up by someone else in the household
or just visiting or just on the scene. Or–the gun is stolen.
Maybe the owner is irresponsible about storing or protecting the gun. Irresponsibility is a thing that is difficult and slow to determine. Guns, more that almost anything else we have, create risks to the public when their owner loses possession or control. It is important that the public be protected in these cases and that insurance coverage continue.
The needed requirement is simple—an insurers responsibility for a specific weapon should continue until it is covered by a new insurer.
Covering specific guns is similar to our practices for automobile insurance.
Car insurance covers additional drivers who have the permission of the owner to drive–and in many states it is required to protect victims of drivers who do not have permission.
Stolen cars are typically covered at least until the theft is reported.
Stolen guns are easier to hide than stolen cars and are dangerous enough to require more continuance.
In sum, there are many kinds of insurance.
As the dangers of every risk bearing activity are addressed, a specific kind of insurance evolves which helps to mitigate these dangers.
The rules and practices that structure the insuring of an activity are adapted to the needs of that activity. The principles above show the nature of the insurance we need for gun ownership.
There are many details which would have to be worked out as a requirement is developed.
This has taken decades for each case in the past and will take time here. It’s time to get started.
It been done many times before and all the necessary pieces have been used over and over again.
This is just a new combination for a new application.