Insurance companies also don’t ask about other perils like eating manufactured “foods” and all the things laced high fructose corn syrup, or not getting enough

Insurance companies also don’t ask about other perils like eating manufactured “foods” and all the things laced high fructose corn syrup, or not getting enough sleep on a regular basis, or being the type of person who is stressed out all the time, and so on. If insurance companies ask about gun ownership as part of responsible risk quantification they also need to understand gun safety controls like gun safes, trigger locks, etc. Also does the owner of said firearm have training and experience like serving this fine country in the MIL? What about looking at the risk reductions gun ownership can afford an owner in some cases such as mitigating a violent home invasion. I have a friend who prevented imminent harm to himself and family including children just by signaling a weapon draw in an outnumber and cornered situation on his property in broad day light. Problem is those situations are not captured in statistics so thus are difficult or impossible to qualify empirically, unlike dead or wounded who are very countable. The tone of this professor’s article feels like a back door gun control by economic penalty (own a gun well you pay more because stats show guns kill people). Only downsides are discussed in any detail. Professor shouldn’t a competent risk analysis properly consider both increases and decreases in risk? You know what insurance companies should also spend some money and effort on? Researching why far far too many vets commit suicide. Stats show 30 vets per 100,000 population commit suicide vs only 14 per 100,000 in the civilian population.