I realize there is a large segment of our population which believes that owning a gun is essential to their personal safety and well-being. Some rely on a firearm to hunt for food. And some are attached to the notion that they stand ready to perform their duty to participate in their State militia when called to action.
There is also a large segment of our population which believes that they don't want to be in the line of fire when an angry or frightened gun owner starts shooting. Even police officers who regularly practice firing a weapon miss more than they hit. It is widely believed among those who have not experienced it that being shot hurts like a son of a ***.
I'm among the folks who want some protection from the loss of income, medical bills and other losses that attend being the victim of a bullet gone wild. I don't have any faith in background checks as a way to obtain that protection.
I believe a market-based solution could be available that would preserve the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a well regulated militia, and protect victims of firearms accidents.
I suggest that we should require that all firearms be covered by liability insurance. This would be similar to the requirement that States impose on ownership and use of a vehicle. I have never heard an argument that liability insurance infringes on the Constitutionally-protected right to own a vehicle. States have wisely recognized that unintended accidents and negligent or careless use of a vehicle can cause great injury and damage. Most states set minimum requirements for vehicle insurance. We have abundant evidence that unintended accidents and negligent or careless use of a firearms also cause great injury and damage. Minimum requirements should also be set for firearms insurance.
We can create a system, like car insurance, in which the arbiter of risk of firearm injury and damage is not a government agency, but an independent, competitive business. Insuring firearms would not require the federal government to register firearms owners. Instead, it would require firearms owners to satisfy local, State-licensed insurance companies about the risk of injury or damage from a particular firearm. As with car insurance, the risk would be determined and an appropriate premium assessed by the insurer. Proof of insurance, as with vehicles, would be carried with the firearm when it is away from the home or business which is the primary insurance coverage location.
This would also allow us to move away from the idea that background checks are somehow effective in preventing gun accidents and violence. Insurance companies have access to ample information about risk and do not need to check arrest records or similar government records. They would be free to consider any factors that they believe are relevant to determining risk and set appropriate, competitive premiums. As with car insurance, the use of safety features could lower premiums, providing market incentives for training, trigger locks and similar safeguards without any government intervention.
If you get nervous, like I do, when an open-carry advocate walks into your store, school, or church, the insurance requirement would give you a level of confidence that the gun carrier had met the risk criteria of an insurance company and you could look to the insurance company for medical bills and loss of income if necessary.
Several national organizations are pushing expansion and improvement of background check systems to reduce gun violence. I think they are playing the NRA's game by the NRA's rules. Even if they win, we lose. It's time to recognize and implement a solution that can really protect those of us who don't want to be victims of gun violence.