Home > Insurance Guide

Should Liability Insurance for Gun Owners Be Mandatory?

The old adage that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is becoming a hazier and hazier sentiment to describe the war on gun ownership. Yes, the world has changed since the constitution was enacted, but it is still the constitution. When it comes to whether or not guns should be regulated, both sides of the fence must come up with some kind of middle ground. With more and more shootings – accidental or otherwise – having some kind of liability insurance may be that middle ground both sides of the argument must compromise on. So, should liability insurance for gun owners be mandatory?

First of all, it is important to understand what liability insurance is. Liability insurance is a form of gun owner insurance that protects the person in the instance that someone is injured or killed with their firearm – whether it is negligent or not. Every day, another child finds a weapon that belongs to a relative and accidentally shoots himself or herself. The child may hurt someone else as well. When it comes to liability insurance, gun owners are weary, because they are worried about whether or not their rights are being infringed upon.

Indeed, this is the reason why liability insurance has not been mandatory. The constitution upholds gun ownership as one of the basic rights of being a citizen. Having any kind of forceful or mandatory adherence to some kind of regulatory rule on gun ownership is often deemed unconstitutional. However, as more and more school shootings happen – not to mention mass shootings – proponents of gun control are looking for a way to meet the other side in the middle – the other side being proponents of constitutional gun rights. The questions then becomes: should there even be a middle ground to meet on.

It sure does seem that there needs to be a middle ground, or else the gun battle will continue to rage on. As both sides continue to fight, people keep dying. Not only that, but it seems like money and tax dollars could be better spent on coming up with solutions instead of veering away from solutions. Moreover, there seems to be a stubbornness that both sides are struggling with that is furthering the stalemate. When it comes to the gun battle – and whether there should be regulations or not – there is a sentiment on both sides that perhaps a solution is coming.

So, should there be liability insurance for gun owners, and should it be mandatory? The answer is that it probably should be. Too many people are dying from guns, which is leading us down a darker and darker path. If you visit Shooting.org, you will realize that gun owners are interested in making people aware about the dangers of gun ownership, but just haven’t figured how – at least in an efficient manner. In addition, mandatory liability insurance isn’t the sign of impending future regulation, but it is a sign that perhaps a solution and an end to the stalemate is near – at least both sides can hope, can’t they?

comments powered by Disqus