As noted last week, there is a growing movement within the U.S. of legally registered gun owners, especially those with concealed carry permits, to secure insurance in case they shoot someone. Complete with a hotline number to call—after notifying 911, not before—the insurance services promise immediate legal and financial protection for a subscriber who had to "defend” themselves. Part of the appeal and support for such insurance comes from the case of George Zimmerman, whose legal bills totaled more than $1 million. Subscribers point to this—not his guilt or his innocence, but simply his ability to defend himself in court—as reason enough to have the coverage.
The insurance-like services, most of which were created in the last five years, are little known outside the gun community. But their popularity appears to be booming with the explosive growth of “concealed carry” itself — alarming gun-control advocates who believe they will make gun owners both more likely to pull the trigger and to avoid consequences.
“Basically, this insurance is helping people get away with murder. And nothing short,” said Geraldine Hills, founder of Arizonans for Gun Safety, whose brother was murdered.
Some support for the practice of gun owner insurance actually comes from a somewhat unlikely source: gun control advocates themselves.
Some gun control advocates, though, have urged lawmakers to make gun insurance mandatory, partly because it would ensure shooting victims were able to collect on court judgments. Dennis Henigan, a former executive at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said gun insurance is generally “a good idea and probably should be required as a condition of a (concealed carry) permit or even required for a permit to own a gun.”
Some 500,000 people are estimated to partake in gun owner insurance coverage. Now if we could only get cities and counties across the county on board. If police officers who use lethal force too readily were personally, financially liable for the shots they take, that might put a halt to the frequency of officer-involved shootings. Or curtail it substantially.
Either one, for now, would be acceptable.