General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I don't care what anyone thinks about their right to own guns [View all]branford
(4,462 posts)First, you cannot insure against your own intentional criminal acts. Insurance also wouldn't cover the effects of violence unconnected to the owner's firearms. Personal insurance is not a some general crime victim recovery fund.
Second, since the incidence of firearm negligence among lawful gun owners is minuscule, despite the occasional graphic news story (recall that the USA has about 100+ million legal gun owners and over 300+ million firearms), the cost for such policies would be (and are) negligible. In fact, most homeowners and renters policies cover accidents involving firearms. As for your question about whether insurance companies would cover gun owners, note that most already do.
Third, if the intent and design of the policy is to discourage the exercise of a constitutional right by simply making it burdensome or expensive, it would almost certainly be unconstitutional as little more than a veritable "poll tax." If you don't agree with the fact that the RKBA is constitutionally protected, you are free to seek to amend the Constitution. The procedures are clear and it has been done 27 times. Good luck.
Fourth, the vast majority of crime involving guns does not involve legal firearm owners, and therefore this policy would have little to no effect on crime rates. "Mass shootings" are also an extremely small percentage of gun crime.
Fifth, firearm accident insurance is already cheap and readily available, and the NRA is one of its largest proponents. If specific firearm insurance became mandatory, it would be a huge financial windfall for the NRA not only as a provider and vendor, but also as an endorser as they are the largest firearms safety organization in the country.