Just like how they don’t understand that raising the minimum wage makes it harder for low income individuals and families to feed themselves, they apparently also want them more likely to be unable to arm themselves.
Both sides in a nation sharply divided over guns seem to agree on at least one thing: a bigger role for the insurance industry in a heavily armed society. But just what that role should be, and whether insurers will choose to accept it, are much in dispute.
Lawmakers in at least half a dozen states, including California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania, have proposed legislation this year that would require gun owners to buy liability insurance — much as car owners are required to buy auto insurance. Doing so would give a financial incentive for safe behavior, they hope, as people with less dangerous weapons or safety locks could qualify for lower rates.
“I believe that if we get the private sector and insurance companies involved in gun safety, we can help prevent a number of gun tragedies every year,” said David P. Linsky, a Democratic state representative in Massachusetts who wants to require gun owners to buy insurance. He believes it will encourage more responsible behavior and therefore reduce accidental shootings. “Insurance companies are very good at evaluating risk factors and setting their premiums appropriately,” he added.
What if a criminal is found with a firearm but no insurance policy? Will they prosecute? Or will this just become like other firearms related charges; something for prosecutors to drop in the hopes of getting a plea to a lesser charge? And what about coming into the jurisdiction from out of state?
And if Linsky so believes that “Insurance companies are very good at evaluating risk factors and setting their premiums appropriately,” why is he still a member of the party that mandated insurers to go through government channels to set health insurance rates?