WOULD LIABILITY INSURANCE REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE?

In Sunday’s Houston Chronicle, ‘Could Liability Insurance Help Limit Gun Violence?,’ a commentary by Loren Steffy, suggests liability insurance might be a better solution to gun violence than new gun control laws.

Personally, I don't believe that will work because criminals and gangbangers simply will not buy the insurance, while among the insured there will always be some psychos that will go on a shooting spree.

Steffy is the Chronicle’s business columnist. Here are some excerpts from his column:

Given the Second Amendment, a regulatory response to guns - certainly to gun ownership - is unlikely, although some lawmakers in the past week have vowed to restrict sales of assault weapons.

In the weapons world, liability is diffused. Gun makers - unlike manufacturers of automobiles, ladders or Easy Bake ovens - are immune to product liability suits. Congress granted them a special exemption passed in 2005.

To paraphrase the old Tom Lehrer song, they ship the guns out, who gets shot down isn't their concern.

If not the gun makers, then who should bear the cost of gun violence?

We could, of course, raise taxes on sales of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, much like we tax cigarettes, another big threat to public health.

But there's a better solution that deserves consideration: liability insurance for gun owners, which could take several forms. One would be some sort of federally mandated liability insurance, similar to mandatory liability insurance for car drivers.

Another proposal, by Bernard Bell, a law professor at Rutgers University, calls for expanding liability laws to create a no-fault liability for gun owners. That would mean that owners are liable for deaths or injuries caused by their weapons, even if they took proper safety precautions.

"There would have to be some sort of insurance so that gun owners could spread the cost of that liability," said Bell, who's written about gun liability. "The cost of liability insurance would presumably reflect the cost the injuries that result from the use of firearms."

Similar liability exists for companies that make dynamite and people who keep wild animals, Bell said. The plan would address the cost of mass shootings such as those in Connecticut, but also the costs of more common gun-related deaths and injuries.

Insurance companies are good at assessing risk, and any gun insurance program would use a series of formulas to set premiums based on the profile of the owner as well as the type of weapon and ammunition.

For example, a 20-year-old buying an assault rifle would pay a much higher premium than, say, a 50-year-old with a hunting rifle, much like a teenage driver faces higher premiums than a middle-aged one.

Likewise, insurance companies would consider the psychological and medical histories of the buyers, as well as the number of times a type or model of weapon has been used in crimes.

"It's essentially an incentive to gun owners that you can maybe reduce insurance rates if you take precautions that are effective in reducing gun deaths," Bell said.

Of course, mandatory liability insurance hasn't eliminated accidents involving uninsured drivers, and no insurance would remove the threat of dangerous weapons or mass shootings. But it would help to assign a cost to them.

The benefit of an insurance program is that it assesses a level of risk to both owners and their guns.

Mass shootings are rare, but that doesn't mean there's nothing that can be done to minimize them.