The NRA is partnering with Lloyds of London to offer insurance to gun owners to cover 
legal fees and civil liability for accidentally shooting or killing someone.
- The pro argument for this insurance is that (like with driving) accident happen and gun owners face substantial financial risk when they do.
- The anti argument is that insurance will make owners less cautious about shooting at someone.
The acid test would be whether we see an increase in shootings among gun owners with this insurance relative to owners without this insurance. However, in the absence of any public reporting requirement about this insurance, it’s going to be very hard to tell whether this increase occurs or not.
Of course, if there are a lot of accidental shootings, the insurance rates will shoot up. (Pun intended.)
The other concern is with elderly gun owners and the rate of dementia. How would the insurer know when a gun owner is no longer competent? For that matter, once a gun permit is issued, how would anyone know?
Do you think this insurance is a good idea?
Sources:
CRAIN'S COMMENTS 