3 ms·
I think one should also consider intentional firearm deaths. I might be wrong and the analogy might not be appropriate but high premiums could disuade people at
by edouard1234567 14y ago
I think one should also consider intentional firearm deaths. I might be wrong and the analogy might not be appropriate but high premiums could disuade people at risk from owning a firearm in the first place and maybe prevent some of the intentional violent crimes.
- staunch 14y agoInsurance doesn't pay for intentional acts and criminals don't buy insurance. Sorry, this idea is ridiculous.
- edouard1234567 14y agoYou're right, it's not very common for an insurance to cover intentional acts. Assume for a second it was possible and assume that most people who buy firearms are not criminals at the time of the purchase and assume this insurance is mandatory like your car liability insurance then maybe high premium for people at risk will deter some of them from buying a firearm and possibly from committing a crime. It also has the benefit of protecting the victims and their families but that's not my main point. The reason I find this idea very interesting is because of its built-in incentive to detect people at risk and deter them from buying a weapon and maybe committing a crime.