At least two states (New York and Maine) have recently considered legislation to require gun owners to obtain special liability insurance — in particular, to cover crimes that might be committed using firearms that they own.
Constitutional issues aside, any insurance company will tell you that such a proposal is ludicrous on its face, because liability insurance only covers accidents, not intentional acts. But such proposals contain the germ of an idea that, if taken in a slightly different direction, could address a significant part of our school funding difficulties.
That is, what if we required parents to get liability insurance in order to conceive, bear, and raise a child? This would be coverage for accidents. For example, if there are expensive difficulties with gestation or labor, any amount that isn’t covered by regular private medical insurance should be covered by parental liability insurance, to avoid billing the overage to taxpayers.
If a child exhibits developmental or other problems that would require special education services, parental liability insurance should cover the related costs, to avoid passing these on to towns, or to the state. This would put an end to the current unsustainable practice of parents using their local and state governments to insure them against catastrophic outcomes.
If a child bullies other children (for example, rushing up behind another child, slamming her to the ground, and punching her repeatedly in the head) the costs of the bullying (for example, treatment for a concussion and a broken rib, and possibly therapy to deal with the resulting emotional damage) should be covered by parental liability insurance.
If a child grows up to impose other costs on society — for example, by committing crimes, or being unable or unwilling to obtain employment — parental liability insurance should compensate the victims, or the state, for damages or other costs incurred in this way, including any costs of incarceration.
Note that once you have kids, you wouldn’t stop having insurance just because they’ve moved out of the house. You would continue to pay until either the threat posed by the children has ended (with their deaths), or your ability to pay the premiums has ended (with your own death or insolvency).
People who don’t own guns want gun owners to consider the havoc that their guns might unleash on society, if things don’t go according to plan, and take steps to protect the rest of us if that happens. I’m just suggesting that parents should do the same thing.
After all, parents impose a much, much higher set of costs on society than gun owners do. We could go dig up a bunch of statistics, but we don’t really have to. Just consider: Only a small percentage of crimes are committed with a gun. But one hundred percent of all crimes are committed by the children of parents, including every crime committed using a gun. One hundred percent of special education costs, and incarceration costs, are spent on the children of parents. And so on.
So if it’s reasonable to require liability insurance for gun owners, it’s even more reasonable to require it for parents. Or to put that another way, if it’s not reasonable to require liability insurance for parents, it’s even less reasonable to require it for gun owners.
