This Article examines whether mandating liability insurance for firearm owners would meet its avowed goals of efficiently compensating shooting victims and deterring unlawful and accidental shootings without creating a net social loss by chilling socially beneficial gun use In the process the Article also examines whether nonmandatory liability insurance may enable socially desirable but potentially risky firearmrelated activitiesThe analysis indicates that a compulsory firearmliability insurance regime is unlikely to attain its goals and may in fact exacerbate the problems it seeks to solve by incentivizing firearm owners to take less care with their weapons It also shows that it is markedly unlikely that such a mandate would achieve a significant level of compliance Optional forms of firearmliability insurance can however enable socially desirable activities by those who would otherwise be unable to bear the risks inherent in those activitiesOne of the best ways to incentivize an activity is to compensate it or to remove its financial consequences Wellmeaning legislators regulators and industry members would therefore best serve their constituencies by encouraging optional insurance that covers liability risks arising from socially useful activities rather than pushing for unhelpful mandates that may aggravate the firearm violence that they seek to remedy
Mocsary, George A., "Insuring Against Guns?" (2014). Faculty Articles. 19.