Claim: Mandatory insurance on the ownership of firearms would unfairly impact poor Americans and minorities who want to defend their homes and families.
This “crocodile tears” argument fails on a number of levels.
First, poor Americans and minorities who own cars are required to take out insurance if they want to use those vehicles. Premium rates are not so onerous that most of them will risk real financial ruin by driving uninsured. Firearms premium rates would be likely be significantly lower.
Second, firearms insurance premiums – like most insurance premiums – would be reduced significantly if the owner took certain measures regarding training, safe storage, and maintenance. “Responsible gun owners” should welcome such incentives.
Third, poor Americans and minorities (especially those who know that “moar gunz” doesn’t make a crime-ridden neighbourhood safer) generally do not collect large armories of weapons to defend their homes and families, so mandatory insurance costs would tend to be on the low side (in comparison to the costs to more affluent firearms collectors/hoarders).
