Bob Herbert's impassioned column in the NY Times this morning, "A Culture Soaked in Blood," reviews the insanity of the role of guns in our society. 100,000 people a year are shot, 30,000 die. Average that for ten years, it's a million people shot, 300,000 die. That's the same as 600 Boeing 747s full of 500 people blowing up. How can we as a society continue to tolerate this slaughter?
I have a partial solution to offer. One that people on both sides of the Second Amendment debate might find acceptable. One that the NRA might be able to endorse. And one that will have the mighty insurance industry jumping for joy.
When I first came up with this idea, I was working with Ralph Nader on a book, and he said that the idea made sense to him. I was also working with Vincent Bugliosi at the time (on a book to solve the drug problem in America) and Vince also thought the idea has merit.
It's a simple idea, and is modeled on the same concepts that give us car insurance. Guns, like cars, can cause injury. Therefore, everyone who drives a car is required to carry insurance against the possible damage that might be caused by the car. Even if the car is stolen, the damage it causes can be covered, with some exceptions if you leave your keys in the car, for instance.
So what would gun insurance look like? The states would require that anyone who owns a gun needs to insure it. If your gun is in a good gun safe, or not operable, your rates would be lower. If you had teenagers in your house and they had access to the guns, insurance would be higher. If you had a criminal record, your rates could be pretty steep. If you had trigger locks, you might get a discount. Get certified in gun use, maybe another discount. Register the forensics of your gun with the FBI, and you get another discount. It's your choice. Like cars, your zip code might have an effect on your rates, just as high accident rate areas for autos pay higher auto insurance.
What would the insurance cover? Gunshot wounds directly cost some $2 billion dollars a year, according to Herbert. So gun insurance would help with medical bills and funeral expenses. Wrongful death, loss of a supporting parent or partner, and damages to property would all be covered. Many gun owners would want to carry insurance against injury by uninsured gun owners. And I'll bet that a lot of those folks who don't own guns would want non-gun owner insurance against uninsured gun owners, if it was offered. Clearly, the opportunities for the insurance industry would be limited only by their imaginations.
Would gun insurance lower the national rate of injury and death from guns? Probably. If owners get a discount on their insurance if they lock up their guns and use trigger locks, that would certainly help. If the penalties for possessing a gun that isn't insured were stiff enough, that would help too. What kind of penalties? If your car is not insured and you get stopped, it gets towed. You get it back when you prove you have insurance. Same for your gun. Your uninsured gun is used in a crime? Penalty goes up. And you probably won't be able to get insurance.
What do you say, NRA members? Surely in the new spirit of President Obama, where we are all trying to solve long festering problems by using fresh thinking, hopefully some of you will agree that this is a healthy step toward responsible gun ownership.
Can we find some common ground here?
The fact that YOU bought THIS particular weapon is on record with the seller and the goverment. That gun is linked directly with you. Do think anyone is stupid enough to then take that gun they bought and go commit a crime with it? Most criminals are not the best and brightest, but they are smarter than that. They buy their guns from private individuals, or off of their local street level arms dealer. Their weapons are not documented. The goverment can't collect their weapons because the government doesn't know they have them. Unless you're suggesting that we empower the government to make random searches of citizens' houses to make sure they don't have unregistered, uninsured firearms. If you are, don't hold your breath; there's a whole great wall of laws prohibiting that action.
Back to the drawing board for you Sindell. This idea is a no-go. Next time add a spritz of reality to your recipe.
Lets look at the real facts. The author threw out some spiffy numbers and figures to show how many lives and how much money guns cost every year, but he didn't go into WHO pulls the trigger in these incidents. The law-abiding citizens that would actually get this insurance are not the people that go around shooting people. If they ever do shoot someone, it'll most likely be in self-defense, since that is what most legal gun-owners in this country buy their guns for. The vast, vast majority of the lives and money lost to gun violence in this country is caused by criminals: people who, even if gun insurance was required by law, would likely not bother getting it. Do you even think these violent criminals get their weapons from gun stores? Allow me to let you in on a commonly-known tidbit of info- when you buy a firearm, you have to fill out a form. The seller at the store calls your ID info in. CONTINUED BELOW
With the right choice of words a person can convince someone to kill themselves or order them to kill another person. Some use words to abuse children. A victim of slander or libel can sue someone who isn't responsible with their speech. One precisely-worded phrase at just the right moment could cause mass panic in a crowded building. We must be trained to use our words properly in English class, but there are also laws regulating free speech. For instance, we can be arrested for speaking in the wrong place at the wrong time, such as in the middle of a court session or when we threaten to do harm to others. In many ways, words can be just as harmful and deadly as a firearm.
Should there should be insurance to protect speakers and writers who might misuse their words to cause harm and injury? You can't talk or write unless you have that insurance. The 1st Amendment right is not a right at all if insurance is required to exercise it. If you own a typewriter or phone your rates will be higher, but discounts are available if you keep them locked up. Have I effectively shown the absurdity of requiring insurance to exercise rights?
Other than that, require insurance to exercise a constitutional right?
Can writer's get insurance to protect them for claims of *hate speech*, or simply getting someone's knicker's in a twist?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/nyregion/28knives.html
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." - Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
I really love this line: "If you had a criminal record, your rates could be pretty steep"
Uh, Gerald, you do know that someone with a felony record can't own a gun, right? And do you really think any criminal out there is going to care about insurance laws? I can just picture them lining up at the insurance companies to register the guns they steal and buy on the black market. What a sight that would be.
But here is something Gerald doesn't seem to realize. The NRA already does offer insurance on all their members' guns. So they already beat you to it.
Insurance for guns is great, just as long as it isn't mandated by law.
1. We punish anyone who uses or carries a firearm in the commission of a crime to the maximum extent of the law instead of slapping them on the wrist.
2. We punish violations of federal firearm laws via federal courts with time to be served in federal prison, instead of allowing local and state prosecutors to fail to charge, charge with a lesser crime, or plea bargin the charges away.
3. If someone carries a firearm in the commission of a crime, they get an additional mandatory 10 years. If they discharge the firearm during the crime, it is 20 years, and if they injure or kill someone with the firearm, they get life. Same for any of their accomplices.
4. If someone is convicted three separate times for three separate felony offenses, they get mandatory life in prison.
Oh and 5. If someone tries to illegally obtain a firearm and is denied by the current background check, how about we actually prosecute them like the NRA wants instead of turning a blind eye like the Brady Camp and VPC want.
By the by, your statistics don't seperate out police shootings, suicides, attempt suicides, etc. Do yourself a favor and check out the actual FBI stats before you believe the NY Times.
Problem here is that you are only required to have insurance to operate a vehicle on publically maintained roads (and even then there are still places where it is not mandatory). Most firearm owners do not operate their firearms on publically manintained lands/ranges.
"If you had a criminal record, your rates could be pretty steep. "
If you have felony on your record, you can't possess firearms. This is already the law.
"Would gun insurance lower the national rate of injury and death from guns? Probably. "
Probably not. It cannot be shown to have that effect on any other activity. And since most deaths involving firearms are criminal misuse (suicides and homicides), it is highly unlikely to have any positive impact on such rates.
Sorry, this idea has been floated by many people for many years and it still fails the test.
Because it punishes the law abiding and not the criminals.