As lawmakers cast around for ways to curb gun-related violence, some are hoping the insurance market might offer incentives.
A bill filed on Jan. 18 in Massachusetts would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance in the event that a firearm is used to injure.
The insurance policies would give those injured by a weapon a legal recourse, backers of the bill say, but they also would create financial incentives that could reduce accidents and fatalities. Gun owners, for example, might see lower insurance rates if they agreed to take firearms training courses and properly stored their weapons.
“Insurance companies were able to discourage smoking through the marketplace and make cars safer through the marketplace,” said state Rep. David Linsky, the bill’s sponsor
A few issues:
1) Your homeowners insurance already covers you if you accidentally shoot someone or if you shoot someone while protecting your home. I guess this would be for intentional violence which raises a few nightmares from an insurance standpoint. Insurers aren't going to want to come near this. Insurance companies will create all sorts of exclusions if possible (if a shooter is on psychotropic medicine we will not pay)
2) People most likely to shoot someone aren't going to bother with insurance.
3) People with stolen or illegal guns aren't going to bother with insurance.
4) Responsible gun owners are already incentivized to properly store and care for guns.
More on the insurance side. When a risk can't be priced properly or is too risky...who steps in? The government of course. Expect this to be paid through tax dollars.