Hacker News Reader

How would that help? The damage would still be done.

If it were calculated based on actual risk, insurance would be minuscule for most people since almost no gun owners cause any damage with their guns.

It would also be highly discriminatory, since gun violence is highly inversely correlated with poverty, and so underprivileged communities would be charged the most.

View on HN

The actuarial cost of guns is about $600 billion annually. $600 billion divided by 400 million guns is $1500 per gun. Some people would have pay much more than that.

Damages caused by guns are directly correlated with poverty. This would help poor areas.

That actuarial figure is not releavant, and is deliberately misleading. Almost all of it is an estimate of the impact of suicides on families. Based on comparisons to countries with stronger gun control, it’s clear that the majority of these would substitute other methods, and even in the case of gun suicides, insurance policies generally do not pay for suicides.

Separately, how do you think this would help poor areas, where most guns are owned informally and would likely be uninsured, just as many drivers are?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com