Gun insurance protects criminals

How can you limit the number of law-abiding gun owners?  It’s a question that keeps gun grabbers up at night and anti-gun legislators hard at work. Their newest idea? Demand insurance coverage.

House Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.) is floating a bill that would require gun owners to carry liability insurance. As The Hill reports, “The Firearm Risk Protection Act, unveiled Friday, would require gun buyers to have liability insurance coverage before being allowed to purchase a weapon, and would impose a fine of $10,000 if an owner is found not to have it. Service members and law enforcement officers, however, would be exempt from the requirement.”

Maloney noted that liability insurance coverage would “ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur.”

This might make sense in a perfect world. But, as gun grabbers don’t seem to realize, our world is far from perfect. Good, honest people are less likely to commit violent crime, and bad people, i.e. criminals, are less likely to obey laws. Accidents are far less frequent than crimes, and criminals aren’t going to bother paying for insurance when they can simply buy a gun off the street (or use a knife instead).

Even if they wanted to follow such a law, could they really afford it? Most gun violence occurs in low-income neighborhoods. Why would someone who can barely afford necessities want to buy “gun insurance”?

The people who would be most adversely affected by this legislation are the law-abiding citizens who can’t afford gun liability insurance. According to the American Firearms Institute, “persons with annual household incomes of less than $7,500 experienced both armed violence and firearm violence at about three times the rates of persons with annual household incomes of $50,000 or more.”

Does Maloney have no concern for the economically disadvantaged? This bill would stand in the way of their Second Amendment rights, and could mean these people lose the only form of protection they have at their disposal.

If this wasn’t crazy enough, Maloney justifies her gun control bill by comparing it to car insurance. As she explains, “We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns. The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise.”

Really? How can you possibly compare a car to a gun? Cars are typically one of the last weapons of choice for criminals (unless you’re a terrorist, of course). Auto fatalities have decreased because accidents have decreased. Meanwhile, the vast majority of gun-related fatalities are crimes committed purposely by criminals.

As is the trend with gun control legislation, this bill robs law-abiding citizens of their rights, while only empowering criminals. But like most gun grabbers, Maloney has no time for reality. Gun control resonates with her constituency and makes her feel warm and fuzzy inside.

The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the position of Guns.com.