From time to time, the idea of “gun insurance” crops up. Some people really think that if you’re going to own a gun, you should be forced to acquire some kind of insurance to cover the potentially criminal misuse of that firearm.
Anti-gunners seem to love this idea, and I see why.
In their defense, if an innocent person is shot, there are mountains of medical bills that accumulate. Should an innocent person be on the hook financially because of the actions of another? Sure, they can sue, but let’s be realistic here. If someone had that kind of money, they’re generally not going to be the type to go around using a gun.
So yeah, I get where they’re coming from.
However, the problem arises because they’re still trying to blame the lawful gun owner for what a criminal does.
See, criminals aren’t buying guns at your local gun store. Even if they acquire them that way, they’re doing it under a false name or they’re getting someone else to buy the gun on their behalf. Does anyone with half a brain really think they’re also going to require the million-dollar insurance policy being called for?
I don’t think so.
Besides, all these lawmakers and advocates calling for such a thing don’t really understand insurance very well.
See, insurance doesn’t cover intentionally unlawful actions, yet that’s precisely what they’re wanting. No insurance company is going to want to issue a policy that only pays if someone acts in a criminal manner.
What’s more, these people know it.
Remember how they lost their mind over the NRA’s Carry Guard program? Now, that was insurance that just covered your legal bills in case you were prosecuted for using a firearm in self-defense, yet gun control advocates called it “murder insurance.” They blasted it and did everything they could to kill the program, and they did.
And that was just to insure someone who used a gun in self-defense, but they acted like it was to insure anyone who shot anyone for any reason.
So yeah, they know that insurance isn’t for intentional criminal acts. They know it based on their past reactions to other things.
Further, gun insurance would be unlikely to cover the acts of a third party who stole or otherwise obtained a firearm from a lawful owner, which is how most firearms are obtained by criminals. It might replace the gun for the original owner, but it’s unlikely it would cover the injuries of the victim in such a case.
In other words, gun insurance isn’t really going to cover much of anything.
Additionally, such a requirement wouldn’t impact everyone the same. While wealthier gun buyers would be able to buy guns at pretty much the exact same rate as they currently do, such a requirement would create an expense that would penalize poorer gun buyers. That’s right, it would amount to a regressive tax on a constitutionally protected right.
For people who say they care about the poor, why would they do everything they can to keep them from exercising their civil liberties? It’s just insane.
Then again, they don’t care about the poor. They don’t care about poorer minorities, who statistically are the ones most likely to live in high-crime neighborhoods. They don’t want them empowered to protect themselves without calling a police force these same people routinely claim wants them dead.
Yet that’s who would feel the effects of an insurance requirement. It won’t be the guy with a six-figure income.
Democrats like to pretend they’re for the little guy, but that falls apart as soon as the little guy starts trying to do anything for himself, including protecting his own family.