system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: a practical way to reduce gun violence is requiring insurance

***UPDATE:***

*I was convinced by several different commenters that using insurance to enforce safe storage and handling rules is overly complex. If the SCOTUS were to allow my insurance idea, they would probably also allow a simpler scheme like a  permitting system where the state or country requires proof of secure storage before issuing the permit.*

*Ultimately, I think the best ideas for safe gun policies would include (in no particular order):*

* *Expanded background checks with a 10-day waiting period.*
* *Red-flag laws with a lower threshold than full involuntary commitment. Friends and family should be able to get guns out of the hands of their suicidal or homicidal loved ones.*
* *Those convicted of violent crimes (felonies and misdemeanors) should be prohibited from possessing guns. Many domestic violence convictions are misdemeanors. Also those with active restraining orders.*
* *Raising the age limit for purchasing guns.*
* *Banning the sale of high-capacity magazines.*
* *Policing practices that get more illegal guns off the streets (preferably without putting more people in jail).*
* *Requiring proof of safe gun storage in order to get a concealed- or open-carry permit, a hunting license, etc. Ideally, I'd like states to require to even purchase a gun or ammunition.*
* *Possibly requiring gun owners to belong to a local or county militia, who would vet new permit applicants and store high-capacity magazines etc.*

&#x200B;

I think that gun owners should be required to get \[edit: liability\] insurance to cover the harms that their guns could cause to others. Insurance coverage would require proof of secure gun storage and responsible gun ownership. High-capacity magazines and guns that have high potential to kill many people in a very short time could be uninsurable unless stored securely at a gun range or gun club ("a well regulated militia").

I think this would reduce gun deaths by encouraging safer storage and use of guns. Owners would have no excuse to not secure their guns. It would also get expensive to own many many guns unless stored in a very secure manner or at a gun club. By reducing the number of guns it is practical to own and pushing to have those guns in a manner that a depressed or angry family member can just walk out of the house with them or use them on themselves, requiring insurance would add friction to the process, hopefully reducing gun deaths. And when people are killed, their family members can get compensation.

Most NRA members and gun enthusiasts support responsible gun ownership and are often obsessed with safe gun handling. They would be able to obtain insurance easily. I could imagine a scenario where they would support this approach over heavy-handed government bans.

Caveats:

* *Eliminating* gun violence or banning guns in this country is not possible. But reducing gun deaths is still a reasonable goal. Reigning  in things on the edges would help. This could be in addition to universal background checks and other approaches.
* I understand that most gun deaths are from suicide or non-mass-shooting homicides. Still, safer gun storage could help. The Sandy Hook shooter stole his mother's guns. How many suicides are committed using unsecured guns?
* Yes, criminals would still illegally own guns. We also need to make a bigger effort get illegal guns off the streets.
* The insurance could be government-run if you don't like the idea of private insurance companies getting involved. Or they could be required to be run in a not-for-profit manner.
* The government could subsidize the insurance so that the the coverage for the first gun is affordable for all. \[Edit: the insurance could be *free* as far as I care, as long as people need to show proof of insurance before purchasing guns, applying for concealed- or open-carry permits, go to a shooting range, or get hunting licenses. But if you fail to secure your guns and your insurance is revoked, you lose your guns.\]
* I understand that it is not currently possible to insure against deliberate illegal acts, but Congress and state legislatures have the power to change that for this instance.
* We already acknowledge that "to bear arms" in the Constitution is not sweeping and absolute. It is generally illegal to purchase machine guns, mines, shoulder-fired rockets, drones with munitions, or nuclear weapons. Local ordinances limit hunting to shotgun only. I don't buy the argument that requiring proof of secure gun storage would be unconstitutional. But I'm not a Supreme Court Justice.

&#x200B;

**UPDATE:**

Not all these were awarded deltas, because my view hasn't fully changed. But the most compelling counterarguments I heard are:

* It's simply impractical because the (current) Supreme Court would overturn it.
* It's too complex a solution. Instead, just enact laws that require secure gun storage instead of going through the insurance. (This got a delta.)
* Reducing the number of unsecured guns wouldn't actually prevent many gun deaths. (I'd need to see statistics on this claim for it to get a delta.)
* The vast majority (99%) of gun deaths are with illegally obtained guns. So adding more restrictions on legal guns wouldn't help. (Again, I'd need to see real stats on this. I don't believe the 99% claim.)
* It's unenforcible without heavy-handed searches and monitoring by the insurance company.
* Outsourcing enforcement of gun safety to private companies is icky.
gpt
A HUGE problem with this is it will ensure only the rich or at least middle/upper middle own guns. As poorer people will be priced out of ownership.

It will almost immediately be called racist/Jim Crow esque.

"You're preventing poor black people from legally owning guns but ensuring rich white people can." (I don't agree with that statement, but it would get said)

&#x200B;

>The government could subsidize the insurance so that the the coverage for the first gun is affordable for all.

This essentially renders the entire idea moot, its just the government spending more money. Also "affordable" means different things to different people.