If there is a business that reflects risk, it’s insurance. If you put a trampoline in your yard your home insurance rates rise. Build a swimming pool and expect to pay a bit more a year in insurance. Own a pit bull, pay more - and so on and so forth.
Insurance captures risk and protects us from it, monetarily at least.
Except for guns.
It is not as if guns in the home aren’t risky - we know that they are and have the data to prove it. And while we mourn the losses of mass shootings, guns typically do more of their damage in the home. Roughly 1,300 children die each year from gun accidents, 85 percent in their own home. A teenager is much more likely to commit suicide if there’s a gun in the home, and the same goes for men. A woman is five times more likely to be murdered if her domestic abuser has a gun. Without access to a gun, those tragedies decline sharply.
So here is a small-step solution to this gun violence and we can all make it happen: A Safe Home Credit on home insurance when households have no gun in the home. Under such a policy, an insurance company would give those without guns a break on the price of their policy.
The good news is that a safe-home policy will not infringe on anyone’s right to own a gun. An individual who is steadfast in believing that having a gun will protect them and their family can still hold on to their firearm.
There is a reason that for so long, the data on which to base decisions and assess the risk of firearms were hard to come by. One would think we’d have a handle on how many guns are in circulation. But we haven’t been able to because Congress muzzled the CDC research on gun violence under the Dickey Amendment. The NRA lobbying arm cut off funding in 1996 and the restrictions have only recently begun to ease. Last year the CDC granted $25 million for research on gun violence. By comparison, it awarded $184 million in 2016 to fight the Zika virus.
As gun safety legislation once again reaches an impasse in Congress, we might start instead with this more modest, more doable step outside the barriers of lawmaking.
But we’ll need to harness the power of consumer influence to make it happen.
Though all companies should have moral motivations to prevent gun violence, only few have a vested financial incentive to actively curtail it. The home insurance industry is one of them. There is reason aside from moral high ground. In fact, it’s clear that insurance companies can stand to benefit from reduced claims as a result of accidental firearm accidents, and even certain mass shootings. With a proliferation of gun ownership in recent years, these claims are sure to rise. Unfortunately, this alone is not enough to persuade the industry to implement a safe home credit.
Cue the necessity for consumer pressure. With enough weight of potential customers, insurers will be persuaded to adopt such a policy. They are in good company. Ed Stack, the owner of Dick’s Sporting Goods, stopped selling assault weapons in his stores in response to one horrific shooting after another. Lately, there has been a wave of corporate influence to impact public policy. Coca-Cola made headlines for speaking up against the new Georgia voting law that they see exacerbates voter suppression. It’s likely just the start of companies feeling obliged to weigh in on contentious topics.
This corporate responsibility should be commended and insurance companies could join their ranks. Recently, we started the Safe Homes Initiative to create an Affinity Group in Massachusetts of folks willing and able to switch their policy to the first home insurer to offer a Safe Home Credit. We hope this groundswell will convince all major insurers to reward safer homes and safer homeowners.
Insurance is in the business of helping people manage risk. Guns in the home are a clear and concrete risk, so let’s reward those who have homes without them.
