Next big thing in gun control? 7 questions about mandatory gun insurance.

As President Obama prepares to travel the country to drum up support for federal gun control laws ahead of a Senate vote in April, one idea is gaining steam at the state level: mandatory gun insurance.

The legislation, which is being considered in a handful of states, would require gun owners to insure firearms as a market-based approach to incentivize safe firearm ownership and usage. But questions remain regarding the efficacy of such a measure, and it faces tough opposition from pro-gun groups.

1. What is gun liability insurance and how would it work?

Joshua Lott/Reuters
Susan Byrne-Dewhirst holds a blue dummy handgun as she attends the Arizona Women's Shooting Associates and NRA gun safety training class taught by a certified instructor in Phoenix this March.

Just as car owners must carry auto insurance, gun liability insurance would require gun owners to purchase insurance for firearms to cover damages to “individuals whose person or property was in some way injured or damaged as a result of the use of a firearm,” says Robert Hartwig, president and economist at the Insurance Information Institute, an industry group that educates Americans on insurance issues.

The theory behind such proposals is that mandatory gun insurance provides a market-based tool to reward safe, responsible gun ownership. Hypothetically, insurance companies would consider a gun owner’s risk characteristics to determine insurance rates. For example, gun owners who have no criminal record or history of mental illness, take safety courses, own fewer weapons, and store them securely would have lower rates than, say, an ex-convict with an arsenal of assault rifles and a record of domestic abuse.

1 of 7

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.