Regulating Guns Through Insurance

As mentioned on my other blog, gun control advocates seek to regulate guns through insurance.

The insurance companies would charge gun owners a premium year each for the privilege of gun ownership. This premium would make a huge pool to compensate anyone who experiences gun violence.

Juries are sympathetic to victims of crimes. Juries are likely to award huge settlements whenever a case strikes them thusly; so the premiums for gun insurance will be massive.

Because juries would award enormous settlements from the insurance pool, the premiums from the pool would be huge. The huge premiums mean that the gun control advocates could control guns by fiat through administrative rules of the insurance company.

For example, awards are likely to be higher if the crime involved a scary looking gun with a large magazine. This would allow regulators in the insurance industry to charge higher premiums for AR-type guns than for pistols.


It is likely that the gun insurance would be sold by groups like the NRA. The money would be held by insurance companies that make huge contributions to politicos on the left and right. So, once the insurance gets started, politicians will give the insurance bi-partisan support.

Imagined for a moment that the NRA made millions by selling insurance. Once that happens, then preserving the income stream of insurance would become a higher priority of the group than defending the second amendment.

The economic effect of gun insurance is that the insurance would transfer hundreds of millions of dollars from middle class gun owners to the ruling elite in the centralized banks.

Now, I admit. I am not all that interested in guns.


The thing is that insurance has had the same perverse effect in health care.

Health Insurance was designed by progressives as a tool for regulating health care.

Progressives developed health insurance as a tool to regulate health care through privately owned firms.


Although health insurance involves private corporations, health insurance has the same perverse effects as direct government control of health care.

If we wish to see substantive free market health, there must be a conversation about alternatives to insurance.

The only way to have a substantive conversation is for people to meet and talk.

For five years, I've had the goal of holding a meeting of people interested in free market health care reform. The meeting would discuss the mathematics of financing health care with the goal of defining an alternative to insurance.

Insurance is the problem in health care and not the solution.

Perhaps the fact that progressives seek to use insurance to regulate guns might wake people up to the perverse effects of insurance.

The gun industry is in the same situation as the health care industry was a half century ago. The industry is balking at insurance. Once insurance is imposed, the conservative groups that benefit from the insurance would become the primary advocates of gun insurance and they would seek to silence anyone opposed to the insurance. Just as conservatives actively silence critics of health insurance.