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.

3. How effective might mandatory gun insurance be in reducing accidents or gun violence?

Jessica Fleischman/The Saginaw News/AP
Gladwin County Sheriff Michael Shea, shown here ealier this month, is investigating a robbery of a gun store in Michigan. Gun insurance laws would likely not be able to account for the use of stolen guns.

It’s clear mandatory gun insurance isn’t a panacea. For one thing, many people would still acquire guns illegally and operate them without insurance – much as about a quarter of the driving public is uninsured, according to some estimates.

And many questions remain, including how to deal with lost, stolen, or transferred firearms, as well as whether and what types of damages insurers would cover.

“It makes a lot of sense in theory. But I'm skeptical that it would work in the real world, both in a practical sense or to reduce violence,” says Morgan Housel, an economic analyst with Motley Fool. “It's not clear that [insurance companies] could handle the risk of an immediate flood of mandatory insurance among hundreds of millions of firearms.”

“There is also evidence that a large portion of firearms used in violent crimes have been stolen or transferred between one owner to the next. It is unclear how insurance would avoid this reality,” he says. “Just as background checks still cause guns to end up in the wrong hands, liability insurance may deter less bad behavior than we might think.”

Still, proponents like Robert Frank, an economist at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., say mandatory gun insurance is a market-based approach that would incentivize more responsible behavior and reduce accidental shootings.

“As a lone measure, requiring insurance would not be enough to screen out the people we're most worried about,” says Professor Frank. “But in combination with numerous other measures that have been proposed, it would be a step in the right direction.”

3 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.