Gun Insurance

Anyone who has ever held, fired or owned a gun has respect for it. It is a mistake to assume that all gun owners are gun nuts.  It is also a mistake to assume that all gun owners have the same reason for owning guns.

Once we understand the differences we can become more effective in dealing with these various stakeholders.

Without knowing what percentage each is of the total, here are six possible categories of gun owners:

1.              Hunters.

2.              Competitive  shooters.

3.              People seeking protection when away from home.

4.              People seeking protection from burglars and rapists at home.

5.              Bullies and anti-establishment sovereign citizens seeking to intimidate others.

6.              Career criminals, many of whom obtained their guns through home break-ins.

And because we all have the same human frailties, any one of these six could become irrational, fly off the handle, lose his or her temper or be pushed over the edge by unforeseen events.

As we do other personal property, we should agree that it makes sense to insure a gun against breakage, damage, mis-use and theft.

An argument needs to be fashioned to persuade legitimate gun owners that liability insurance must be part of that package.  This must be presented in such a way as to not be interfering with one’s right to keep and bear arms as provided for under the Constitution’s Second Amendment.  Statistics on gun thefts, and the subsequent injuries and crimes committed by people using stolen guns, along with insurance discounts, should convince all in the first five categories of gun owners on the need to prevent their guns from falling into the hands of the sixth category.

Once accomplished, insurance carriers will make people aware that how they handle their weapons affects the price of insurance coverage.

This is similar to other forms of insurance.

·      Non-smokers get discounts on auto, health and fire insurance.

·      Driver-Ed graduates get discounts on auto insurance.

·      Owners of sprinkler-equipped homes get discounts on homeowners insurance.

The thrust needs to be on assuring the safety of others –i.e., preventing accidents--  without compromising the safety of the gun owner. 

Hunters and competitive shooters ought to be able to see the wisdom of keeping guns and ammo separate and locked.  They should welcome a discount for doing what they see as sensible anyway.

People who carry guns –either visible or concealed—for protection when they are away from home can be educated to carry weapons locked and ammunition separately.  A discount on insurance should be helpful in educating them.

People who keep guns on their nightstands or under their pillows might not see the wisdom of keeping weapons and ammunition separately.  They may see rapid response as crucial to their perceived need for security at home.  But they can be shown the wisdom of not keeping guns on counter-tops, coffee-tables and the like when they are not at home.  Statistics on gun thefts, and the subsequent injuries and crimes committed by people using stolen guns, along with insurance discounts, should convince the home-security gun-owner that no one is abridging his or her right to keep and bear arms.

These nightstand and under pillow gun owners also need to respect the danger that their guns represent to welcome visitors –let alone to themselves when tempers flare.

Musket vs. StreetSweeper

THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT
TO OWN AN ASSAULT WEAPON.

Every so often we start a serious discussion of deadly weapons. From my perspective, there is no reason that a sane, normal person needs an AK-47. I searched the Constitution and found no supporting reference. I researched the writings of the founders of the republic, with similar results.

Some people may "want" an AK-47; some may even feel a "need" for an AK-47. But the Constitution does not support anyone in a supposed right to keep one at home where children, visitors and, yes, thieves, can get their hands on it.

For those who insist that we adhere to a strict construction of the wording of the Second Amendment as written in the 18th Century, so, too, we should adhere to a strict definition as to the meaning of "arms" as used in the 18th Century: Muzzle-loading rifles, then breech-loading ones, and muskets, as well as the sort of Wogdon dueling pistols used by Vice President Aaron Burr to kill Alexander Hamilton in 1804 in New Jersey (because dueling was outlawed in New York).

One should have a right to "keep" all other weapons at a local armory (military or private) after an extensive background check and training.
One should have a right to "bear" these other weapons in plain sight by signing them out and specifying the purpose, be it hunting, target practice, parade, etc., after which the weapons would be returned for "safe keeping."

There is no absolute right to own assault weapons or so-called street-sweeping hand-guns that fire 33 bullets in nano-seconds, to conceal them from public view, or to bring them in open displays of intimidation to political meetings of our elected officials.