Insurance isn't "the way foward" on guns

Insurance isn't "the way foward" on guns
AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty, File

When San Jose passed an insurance requirement for gun owners, many people figured that was a new frontier they could exploit in their war against the Second Amendment.

The fact that the requirement basically just said you should have homeowner’s insurance didn’t really do much.

But it was sold as if it were the answer.

Now, an insurance-focused publication reports that a poll shows many believe it’s the answer on guns.

According to a recent ValuePenguinsurvey, 75% of Americans believe that gun owners should be required to have liability insurance on their firearms.

This finding suggests that insurance companies could be a possible solution to gun control. Gen Zers, those earning more than $100,000, and parents with children younger than 18 were among the most likely to support insurance requirements.

Additionally, 82% of Americans think that gun owners should be held accountable for how their guns are used. This sentiment was especially prevalent among parents with children under 18, as well as millennials.

Divya Sangameshwar, an insurance expert with ValuePenguin, believes that insurance may be the smartest way to push for gun control. “Insurers have always led the way when it comes to safety,” Sangameshwar says.

Except actual accidents with guns are relatively rare, especially compared to things like auto accidents, fires, or pretty much everything else covered by insurance.

Where guns take lives are either through suicide or intentional homicide.

Guess what’s not going to get covered by any insurance? Exactly.

Insurance does not ever cover an intentional act. I can’t run someone on purpose with my car and expect Geico to foot the bill. That’s going to be on me, as it should be.

Similarly, with guns, liability insurance isn’t going to cover any intentional act. It won’t cover a homicide and it won’t pay out with a suicide.

Further, it’s unlikely that anyone polled understands that. I’d expect a publication named Insurance Business to at least understand the practicalities of trying to implement some kind of requirement like that and at least mention that.

Then again, a lot of people think gun accidents are a lot more common than they are. Still others likely think gun owners should be on the hook for firearms that are stolen from them for some idiotic reason. They apparently think the insurance would cover the misuse of a stolen firearm, but it won’t.

Look, I get that people want to find solutions to the violence we see on the news every single day.

What I don’t get is why people can’t get beyond trying to punish law-abiding citizens for the actions of those who are anything but.

An insurance requirement is just another step, another hurdle designed to keep guns out of the hands of anything but those financially better off while doing little to nothing to actually reduce crime. It’s insane that we’re even having this discussion in the first place.

Then again, we live in Clown World where anyone can just up and decide to come up with restrictions that have no basis on reality.