"I fail to see ..."

" I fail to see how requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance will reduce gun violence. Given the track record of the insurance industry in general it seems wishful thinking that they will serve the public interest in this case." 

 This comment, rather cynical and biased, reflects the narrowness, in-the-box, mind set that pervades the gun control debate. We need to break out of our personal ideological boxes and start thinking as a community about how we resolve the constitutional conflict we have created for ourselves regarding GUNS.

However, I would argue the insurance mandate would cut the cost of gun violence for the survivors and might serve as a deterrent to irresponsible gun ownership by exacting a real price for owning a particular type of gun under particular circumstances. It monetizes to right to gun ownership.

Right now, in the USA, only the governments have the responsibility to regulate guns. Their interests are, as we see daily, compromised by the political process and power of special interests at all levels. There is only one common rule for gun control recognized in the US. The "right" to bear arms. The responsibilities for that right are not uniform, non existent, and/or not enforced

The only way to control a special interest, in my experience, is with a countervailing special interest. It is the Ying/Yang of political power. There is no central interest in government to control weapons or how they are used. Good and bad arguments are made on both sides of the issue.

The insurance industry has but one interest -- to be profitable to its shareholders. It does this by taking on other peoples risks at a price. To be profitable, the price must be greater than the demand made upon the risk pool the insurance company has established to satisfy claims against its policies. The proposal I'm making is the same type of liability insurance currently mandated in many states for purchase, registration and operation of a motor vehicles.

If you want to own a vehicle and want use a motor vehicle in the state, you must register it. In order to register it you must prove that you have, in force, insurance that covers the other driver or victim in the event of an accident.The cost of insurance is part of your price of owning a car.

Insurance companies price of their insurance policies based on the history of the owner, the type of vehicle being insured, and the history of that class of vehicle, among other things.

The public policy issue of what to do for the victim when hit by an uninsured driver is addressed by the insurance mandate. This legally pins responsibility on the car owner."You are personally responsible for the damages caused by your car." Now, read "gun" in place of "car".

The administration of the law is done through the private section. And the cost of owning and the operating vehicle or gun comes out of your pocket. An incentive to buy the insurance is that the insurance can help you to control your costs or liability in the event of an accident. The premiums paid into the insurance company creates a pool of funds from which victims recover their losses, which is an incentive for the public and tax payers to support mandate And the insurance company owners are motivated to rationally assess their risks and policies and setting prices in order to make a profit.

It all comes down to the money and not the ideological excesses of pro- and con- fanatics and submissive political hacks.

See also: Man the Toolmaker or the Tool?