Richard Mayhew, Balloon Juice’s resident health-insurance guru, on firearm safety:
When I learned how to shoot, I was taught the following three things:
- Only point a weapon at something or someone that you intend to kill
- Always assume a weapon is loaded, and the safety is off.
- You are always responsible for your weapon until the weapon is in the armory’s gun safe.
Can we incorporate these basic assumptions into civil law where the assumption is that any discharge (intentional or accidental) is the responsibility of the owner of the weapon and therefore the owner is liable for whatever damage a bullet fired from his weapon causes. Liability would follow even stolen weapons if reasonable efforts to secure the weapon were not made. …
There have been attempts to regulate firearms as a consumer protection issue, but the NRA is too strong. This proposal moves responsibility down the chain to the individual owner instead of the manufacturer.
Which is exactly where it should be. Hello, personal responsibility.
The rational response of creating the assumption that the weapon owner is liable absent extraordinary circumstances instead of the current assumption that [expletive] happens is for responsible owners to buy insurance to cover their liability. Speaking as an insurance company bureaucrat, I would assume insurance companies would offer good rates to individuals who own longarms instead of handguns, who have a gun safe, who have trigger locks, who have gone to safety classes and who have otherwise demonstrated that they actually are reasonably likely to be safe.
Individuals who think “tactical” masturbatory fantasies are reality and believe that everyone should have a loaded pistol in their unlocked night stand even if they have two pre-kindergarteners in the house would probably be rated as high risk for negligent discharge. Individuals who have more weapons than fingers would probably be rated as risky. Individuals who have a history of accidental discharge would be rated as risky.
I’m not a fan of using liberterianish policy making as a first best choice, but my political judgement is that this type of regulation is the only viable away forward right now. And going back to my health policy wonkery, reducing gun woundings means lower trauma costs, and lower recovery costs to cover.
I’m sure the NRA as an organization would fight this tooth and nail, of course. But I think it would be instructive to see the number of “personal responsibility” conservatives and libertarians and the number of so-called responsible gun owners who would fight it as well. I’d be delighted to be proved badly wrong on this, but I suspect that well more than half of American gun owners, if polled, would oppose this measure even if the reasons and benefits were explained carefully to them.
Because for way too many American gun owners, it’s not about rights and responsibilities, it’s about I want what I want and [expletive] you. I saw that attitude over and over and over again while covering cops (not from cops, but from many of the people with whom they interacted), and that’s why I say this: Whatever else it is, the American gun-owning public is in no way, shape or form a well-regulated militia.