I'm going to try starting a conversation about what "responsible" gun laws should look like...

[Sancho]

74. If policies were required for guns (like auto and homeowners), they would probably ask about kids...

just like some policies now ask about teenage drivers, pets, smoke detectors, etc. Policies specific to gun possession and use would include a new set of questions (or your premium would differ or else you may not be able to get insurance).

Insuring the value of guns is not the issue. Your umbrella policy likely has exclusions if you break the law, attempt suicide, or act carelessly. It was probably designed to protect you if a neighbor slips on the steps. If you have a teenager driving or raise attack dogs or have a daycare in your home, your policy would have to change or your premiums would go up. Call your insurance company and ask them, "if I am cleaning my gun and shoot my neighbor, or let my kids play with guns and they shoot my neighbor...will you pay their medical bills?" I'm curious what they'd say! Likely, illegally discharging a gun in the house (city limits, whatever) or being reckless is going to be an exclusion and you're in trouble. That's why they don't care about your "risk".

IF laws required insurance in order to have a firearm license; or required insurance on a registered gun...that would increase safety and possibly eliminate some of the dummies from giving kids guns or leaving them around irresponsibly. Those polices might require safety courses. The premium might be much larger if you had kids living with you.

Not perfect, but it's one possible addition to new statues. Requiring gun owners insurance doesn't impact the "2nd amendment", but it helps screen. Actuarial tables for firearm possession (incidents) may not be as common now as auto underwriters would have, since there is little research or insurance requirement for them. The sparse data available is clear...when there are more guns, more people get shot. If there is no gun, then no one gets shot.