Gun Liability Insurance

A given gun is less likely to kill a human being than a given car, and insurance on cars is fairly affordable. Some states do car insurance better than others; I think California has something like a 50% compliance rate with auto insurance. Virginia doesn't require it at all, which still scares the hell out of me.

To the extent states get people to buy car insurance it's because you need to do that to get your license plate, and it's immediately obvious if a car has a license plate or not. There's not currently a similar plate for guns, but maybe there should be.

but seems like if you have a stockpile of assault weapons and a mentally unstable relative living in your home, your rate would be extremely high. If you have no kids, and no mental health issues in your household, etc. then it wouldn't be a lot.

I think that insurance companies might be motivated to do a more thorough investigation than just a background check on the person making the purchase.

...already.

It's about time they take responsibility for their guns. The premiums should go by population too if you CCW. Make gun owners have register their guns each year along with proof of insurance.

list why it wouldn't work. Always thought arguments were BS. Good idea. I don't like heaping costs on poorer people, but one could work around it.

You're assuming the liability insurance for a hunting weapon vs. an assault weapon would be the same. You do understand that the insurance cost for say a Maserati is substantially more than for Ford Fiesta right? For a so-called professor, your understanding of how the insurance industry works appears to be non-existent. Do you have any type of insurance: health, homeowners or car?

called. Back when we had real EEO in this country, that kind of disparate impact got you sued by the Federal government.

When you price something artificially so only the well off can afford it, that's classim and often racist in impact. Backdooring gun control through a mandatory insurance program is a false flag and the courts would see through it. Articles like the one cited make that an easy case to prove

The right answer is to take the issue head on, feature by feature. The results would be much less attackable in the courts.

You're arguing that reducing the number of guns in circulation and holding gun owners responsible through requiring insurance is classist and racist. Because gun violence doesn't disproportionately affect the poor and minorities? You're such a hypocrite sometimes. You also completely failed to address my points regarding the way insurance works. Is the health insurance mandate classist and racist? How about car insurance? I would ask for an apology for that baseless, wrong insult but I don't expect much from you. In fact, this is it, you've made my ignore list. I don't have to take that shit from you. And change your avatar - you don't display Aloha. Auwe!

I chose my words carefully. The approach being discussed would have defacto disproportionate impact on the poor and minorities. That is what I said you would be supporting. That is not the same as accusing you of direct or overt racism.

Violence does disproportionate impact minorities and the poor. Lesser investment, lower police presence, disfunctional family structures are all a part of that, and yes I for one see some classim and racism in that and am far from alone. 1%ers, including Bloomie talk a good line and then continue to grind down the working man.

I am a permanent part of the ohana, aloha to you too.

Then don't throw it around casually - I for one, do not appreciate having that word thrown at me - still you really need to work on that whole progressivism thing

progressive. There is some room for the group vs the individual discussion as well..

I use the racism/classism argument as a shock tactic. So does Angela Davis. Noam Chomsky, and Jesse Jackson. Good people (and we all think of ourselves as good people) abhor racism and classism. Yet in well meant and innocent action that can be what happens, even unintentionally. People need to understand that is the impact of what they are doing, and yes it can be upsetting since it is defacto and not intended.

Feds also used to step in when that happened. Today we have overt racism and an EEO has been neutered...but that is another issue.

That said I am in pain tonight and agree I should not have been so brusque. Apology offered.

amassing them.

The result is very competitive pricing for ARs and accessories. They are better and lower cost that other alternatives. While gun nuts and thugs are getting them, so are a lot of other shooters. It is the most popular rifle in the US today. Its clean design, modularity and options make it almost like Gun Lego. It is readily adjustable to smaller shooters and the recoil in smaller calibers including .223 is easy for women to handle. For those looking for a center fire sporting rifle, it is about as good as it gets.

There was a HuffPo article cited on another thread where a VPC bubba is saying the the over 40 male market is saturating, so your concerns might be resolving themselves. I thing the article is quite bogus and flawed, but look at it anyway: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/nancy-lanza-firearms-purchases_n_2318599.html?utm_hp_ref=crime

You might consider that there are a lot more kinds of shooters than gun nuts and thugs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117293860

A so called "assault weapon" is more powerful than a hunting weapon.

The typical Remington model 700 hunting rifle is chambered for .30-06. It is much more powerful than a Bushmaster M4 which fires .223 or 5.56.

For example, the OP drew the analogy to compulsory automobile liability insurance. That law makes it more expensive to own and operate a car. The effect obviously falls more heavily on the poor -- de facto classism! Race correlates with wealth and income in this country, so the effect also falls more heavily on blacks -- de facto racism! Nevertheless, as a lawyer who frequently represents people injured in motor vehicle accidents, I personally think the minimum coverage should be increased, even though that will make it more expensive and will further burden the poor.

So, do you support repealing compulsory automobile liability insurance? Just to make sure that the poor aren't discriminated against when it comes to driving, do you support repealing the gasoline tax? As an environmentalist, I personally think it should be substantially increased.

There are problems with the idea of firearm liability insurance. I am not, however, impressed by a plea based on class. A demand that lower-income psychotics must be kept level with middle- and upper-income psychotics in their ability to commit massacres is not a progressive cause.

The classic refutation is:

What other enumerated constitutional right does one have to
- Demonstrate need
- get mandatory training
- licensing
- periodic re-licensing
- pass a test
- pass a psych evaluation
- pay high taxes on
- pay for insurance on
- canned be banned by the executive branch
to exercise?

Posts on DU have called for all of the above in some measure without any concern for the legality. In all fairness I support mandatory training and other restrictions, but some of the posters are well over the top.

It should also be noted that where cars are effectively required for people to get to work (most of SoCal) the high gas taxes in CA are regressive and have been discussed as such.

As a lawyer you should also understand the historical stand in the EEO community about defacto even if unintended impacts. When the effect of a program falls disproportionately on the poor and minorities, back when we had real EEO in this country, that kind of disparate impact got you sued by the Federal government.

When the government forces the pricing on something artificially so only the well off can afford it, that's classim and often racist in impact. Backdooring gun control through a mandatory insurance program is a false flag and the courts would see through it. Articles like the one cited make that an easy case to prove. The right answer is to take the issue head on, feature by feature. The results would be much less attackable in the courts.

I would point out that this is already that way in Bloomberg territory. Want a handgun and you are well off, no problem, poor and minority, not so much.

Gun lovers tend to overlook those two little words. The 2nd Amendment is the ONLY amendment that contains that language. I'm sure back in the 1700's, part of "well-regulated" meant making sure your rifle was in good working condition, so that you could be called upon to help defend the country.

By the way, you still have to purchase a gun. Should the government offer subsidies for poor people so that they can buy a gun?

Regardless of the meaning of well-regulated, doesn't it modify militia and not people or arms in the sentence structure?

If you interpret the "militia" to represent all Americans, then 'well-regulated' most certainly applies to people.

Of course, you could go the other route, and interpret that "militia" only refers to organized militia groups (ie National Guard)...but that wouldn't be very favorable to gun lovers, would it.

I repeat my question: Do you support compulsory automobile liability insurance?

I'll add a follow-up: Do you agree with me that the impact of such laws falls more heavily on the poor, and that they are therefore, by your reasoning, examples of classism and racism?

You write, "It should also be noted that where cars are effectively required for people to get to work (most of SoCal) the high gas taxes in CA are regressive and have been discussed as such."

Yes, I must concede your point. Gasoline taxes have a regressive effect. So you get another question: Do you support the repeal of gasoline taxes?

You also write, "As a lawyer you should also understand the historical stand in the EEO community about defacto even if unintended impacts. When the effect of a program falls disproportionately on the poor and minorities, back when we had real EEO in this country, that kind of disparate impact got you sued by the Federal government."

That's an oversimplification. A disparate impact (when a job requirement operates to exclude proportionally more members of a protected class) creates a presumption of unlawful discrimination, but the employer can rebut the presumption by showing that the requirement is a bona fide occupational qualification. For example, fire departments used to require that applicants be able to bench-press a certain weight, because firefighters have to be strong. This disproportionally excluded women. Courts overturned the requirements, because, although firefighters have to be strong, they don't have to bench-press on the job. Now, fire departments use tests that are more carefully tailored to actual job requirements. An applicant might have to put on a 50-pound backpack, run from the starting point to a building, climb four flights of stairs, pick up an additional weight at the top of the stairs, descend the stairs with it, and run back to the starting point, all in under two minutes. It still has a disparate impact on women, but it's legal.

The practical result of even properly enforced EEO laws is that it's harder for women to become firefighters. The practical result of compulsory automobile liability insurance and of gas taxes is that it's harder for the poor to drive, even if they live in SoCal and need to get to work. Those are unfortunate consequences, but they aren't deal-breakers. There are other public goals that are furthered -- having firefighters who can do the job well, adequately compensating accident victims, and forcing drivers to bear part of the cost that their driving inflicts on society. In each case, I believe that the sexist or classist impact is an acceptable price to pay.

Your reply to me invoked the Second Amendment. I wasn't getting into the constitutional issues. I was addressing only your argument that compulsory firearm liability insurance would be classist and racist. My response is that a disparate economic impact is only one factor to be considered.

There are other problems with the OP's suggestion. For example, what minimum coverage would be set? In New York, where I practice, the minimum auto coverage is a joke, being far too low to compensate even one seriously injured victim. Would all gun purchasers be required to obtain insurance that would cover the eight-figure liability of a Newtown-style massacre? The insurance idea is worth considering, but I'm not yet convinced that this and other problems could be dealt with.

if we strike while the iron is hot.

The iron will have cooled considerably when the new House and Senate are seated. Nothing this big will happen in the lame duck session. Repukes can simply refuse to take up anything than the fiscal cliff stuff and adjourn.

Not clear if that is what will happen, but I see it as likely

When it move off of CNN and is replaced by taxes or something else, I won't be surprised.

It means that, if you're skimming the list of subject lines, don't bother clicking on this one because there's nothing in the post beyond the subject line.

Some people use "eom" for "end of message" with the same meaning.

I don't think insurance is allowed to be written against intentional acts of an insured.

Isn't most of the damage being done with firearms either willful or reckless in nature?

like Shares United

Current TOS says nothing about pointing out zombies, those who have returned after being kicked out. You have tried to dodge that label, but it is quite true. I am not the only one pointing that out.

I will take this to the admins or meta in the next day or so and will see what they say.

Here is a recent one where i suggested some tightening of the current gun control laws
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022008389

We used to not allow zombies...if that is no longer the case, I will stop pointing out your zombiehood.

The bell is finally tolling for your pro gun views and you are lashing out.

Aren't advocates for guns and ammunition in the hands of the public supposed to be the models of self-restraint?

Restrain yourself! Get a grip!

Grow up and take being ground into the dust like a good sport.

But keep up with the personal attacks, maybe you can lose another identity

I said I will take the zombie issue to admin/meta and I will

Your posts have always been weak screeds and given time, you start to spin up and go OTT and things get things cancelled. Some have expressed that Shares United was not your first identity you lost at DU.

If drug use or mental illness lead to gun violence, it isn't necessarily an intentional act?

Homeowner policies can include liability insurance for homeowners dog.. to protect home owner in case dog bites somebody.
(an aggressive dog seems similar to a loaded gun...)

I honestly don't really know what regulations might exist for insurance companies in regards to gun liability insurance.

When you price something artificially so only the well off can afford it, that's classim and often racist in impact.

Focusing purely on self defense, your approach limits effective self protection only to the well off. Is that fair or appropriate? The poor who are predominately minority no longer have options that the well to do have and they are often at higher risk. Is that fair or progressive?

from gun owners insurance coverage. Who pay for victim's medical bills right now?
The government? The victim's health insurance company if they have one?


I'm not particularly concerned about pricing anybody out of the gun market.

Perpetrators of gun violence belong in jail, full stop. Insurance isn't the way to deal with this. Taxes, on the other hand, seem highly appropriate. Gun owners should pay for the social and medical fallout of their hobby.

No one needs a gun. Its not food or health care. I think the idea in the OP is absurd. What is the policy meant to pay for? Damages for wrongful death? Insurance is not a solution to criminal violence. On the other hand, your attempt to pretend there is an equality issue here is repulsive.
Too bad you don't worry about the disproportionate effects that race, class, gender, and childhood play in being the targets of gun violence. Guns are all about male privilege, your privilege to stockpile WMD above the rest of our right to live.

Sky high taxes, on the other hand, would be appropriate. It is time gun owners start to pay for the social and medical costs of their privilege. .

or is that social cost acceptable?

If we had a problem with deaths related to being struck in the head with beer bottles, then yes. If you drink your alcohol in bottles then you take out a policy. You're talking about insurance to promote an actual responsable use of a physical object vs insuring the damage that could be inflicted by one's altered state of mind. Apples and Oranges.

can we heavily tax alcohol enough to fully pay for the harm to society done by people who abuse alcohol?

that's what alcohol taxes are for. Cigarette taxes serve the same purpose.

I guess we are good to go.

Is good to go? No, no more.

it is not working and needs to be raised significantly, don't you think?

Since alcohol is strongly correlated with violence, I would be for a two tiered license. You can have a drivers license that allows you to buy guns or alcohol, but not both. You decide which you want, but you don't get to drink and own guns.

aren't non-gun owning drinkers responsible some how for the damage to society caused by alcohol? Shouldn't they, like gun owners, pay a high tax to cover that cost?

But it's noteworthy that you steadfastly refuse to consider any limits on guns.

and finding away to fold mental health records into the system. I would make background checks mandatory for all private sales.

And of course I would strengthen the laws regarding guns in the commission of a crime - lets focus the justice system on getting violent felons put away for a long time.

But not all mental health records, since that is meaningless and violates equal protection. But those adjudicated or otherwise designated as a danger to self and others should be kept from owning guns.

High-death count magazines need to be banned. Their only purpose is war or mass murder.

not weapons with "High-death count magazines". It may make you feel safer but "assault weapons" account for about 1% of all murders. What are you going to do about the real problem?

Are you saying you would ban handguns instead?

self-defense is a recognized civil liberty - Congress cannot ban handguns.

I would ban nothing. I would tighten background checks, focus the justice system on putting violent felons away for a very long time and strengthen mental health card.

Perhaps tanks? Biological weapons? Nerve gas? Should no WMD be off limits?

it just specifically says handguns can't be banned.

How do you expect to bring about meaningful change if you are not willing to learn the legal and technical aspects of gun control? The first AWB was fatally flawed because of such ignorance - do you want to hand the NRA another such gift?

So rational, it should have happened years ago. I wonder why it hasn't? Hmmm??


No more special rights for guns! Repeal the second amendment now!

The best idea I have heard so far.

Most homeowners and many renters already do.

I carry one million dollars in personal liability.

BTW - Insurance companies neither charge higher premiums for people who own firearms, nor offer discounts for gun-free homes. They are the de facto experts on risk. If people who owning firearms caused a measurable increase in risk, you can bet that the insurance companies would be all over it because they could make money from it.

The NRA. Heads would pop. The NRA would get millions more members to take advantage of cheap insurance rates.

Of course liability insurance doesn't cover criminal acts, so I think the proposal wouldn't do what folks think it would.

It's a really good idea, but I get the feeling that any insurance company who undertakes this will have to charge high premiums to cover their liability. Because when they pay out, it would most certainly be serious monetary damages issued by the court.

increases odds of getting included in the final bill

I mean how great would that be??11!!!!

$1 million bucks payout for the loss of my child. That cold cash would be such a comfort to me as I clear out their toys and clothes and attend their funeral. I'd sit snuggling my cash instead of my child on Christmas Eve. Hey, maybe I could use it to go to Las Vegas!

Perfect eh?

But I would rather the parents get the pay out than not.

But I think it is a great idea. Insurance companies and making money. Look what it did for healthcare!

It would solve 85% of the issues.

I don't know. Certainly they should be charged more for health insurance, as gun injuries can add up to catastrophic medical bills.

But I suspect that this would just drive people to lie about their firearms.

Why the hell don't they charge more for having a gun in the house?

Think about the numbers- 80,000,000 owners of 300,000,000 guns. In any given year, there are ~100,000k fatal or non-fatal injuries with firearms (CDC's WISQARS). That's not *just* in the home, but let's use it as an estimate.

That means that 99.875% of gun owners will not be involved in a fatal or non-fatal gun injury, and 99.96% of all guns aren't used in a fatal or non-fatal injury.

HILARIOUS.

Let me know if a monetary award for a dog bite will be the same as the award for a dead person.

I love how Delicate Flowers think they can throw obvious falsehoods out there (I can't use the L word since the Delicate Flowers alert on it).

Feel free to step up.

You'll notice I included both fatal and *non-fatal* in the previous sentence, yes? I also included suicides.

If you'd like me to remove those, I'd be happy to run the numbers again- hint, you wouldn't like it.

I'll type slower this time.

You can't state gun-death liability would be based on just numbers of the dead, or just numbers of the shooters. What would the award be for a dead person? How many millions would each dead person get from the insurance company? If there was damage attributable to the Delicate Flower that did the murdering (like from cars going out of control in a panic situation, or other damage to property), how many more millions would that be?

Insurance companies aren't not offering gun-death insurance because it would be too cheap. If you think that way, here's an offer: I own a bridge that that you might like. Buy it and you can make a mint charging tolls. PM me!

There are centuries of precedent. It's not rocket science.

> There are centuries of precedent. It's not rocket science.

Very good. That's why they don't offer gun-death insurance. Too many millions - running into the billions - of possible claims.

DUH!!!

A typical homeowner's or renter's policy would cover liability for death caused by an accidental or negligent shooting. At least up to the liability limit stated in the policy. For survivors to recover more than that, they would have to sue.

I know mine would cover my liability, just as it would if one of my trees fell on someone. And my insurer does know that I own firearms. I've discussed it with my agent. He told me that if the value of my collection ever exceeds a particular value, I should catalog the collection and get a rider to ensure that the full value is covered against fire and theft. Otherwise firearms are included under "unscheduled personal property."

If he could increase my liability premium because I have firearms in the home, you can be quite sure he would have done so already.

You have to sue to get any money from a liability policy. And many gun owners, perhaps the vast majority, don't have a million dollar liability policy, anyway.

Here's a little fact for the Delicate Flowers about how much insurance for their Precious would really cost, and why you can't get it.

The Public Services Research Institute reported that in 2008, firearm homicide and assault cost federal, state and local governments $4.7 billion annually including costs for medical care, mental health, emergency transport, police, criminal justice and lost taxes. They also state that when lost productivity, lost quality of life, and pain and suffering are added to medical costs, estimates of the annual cost of firearm violence range from $20 billion to $100 billion.

You think insurance companies want to pay out billions so that Delicate Flowers have the "tools" to work up enough courage to walk out in public?

C'mon, I know you can do it..

I'll hold my breath.. not.

Or any kind of liability policy, other than for operating a motor vehicle. If that.

Easy to call a friend (the agent I've had for a long, long time) and "shoot" the shit.

And as my other post noted, you're wrong. You were sure quick to jump, tho'.

n/t

The Public Services Research Institute reported that in 2008, firearm homicide and assault cost federal, state and local governments $4.7 billion annually including costs for medical care, mental health, emergency transport, police, criminal justice and lost taxes.

Homicides and assaults are CRIMES, bongbong. No liability policy pays out for the results of criminal acts. Or for suicides.

> Homicides and assaults are CRIMES, bongbong. No liability policy pays out for the results of criminal acts. Or for suicides.

That's the point. That's why you'll never see gun-insurance.

I promise I typed this post slowly. Hope you finally understand.

n/t

Don't you Delicate Flowers just HATE IT when somebody calls you on your fantasies and claims about your Precious?

When we got our extended homeowner's policy (to cover all our computer equipment, reef tank, and firearms,) we also got a blanket liability policy- I use the covered computers at work, which exposes me to liability through my company. They require a liability policy for the external testing I do. (Should the computers become infected with the latest worm/virus and become part of a botnet, I and the company could be liable.)

I specifically asked about whether or not guns have any effect on the liability policy, and the agent explained that no, there was such little difference in claims from homes with guns versus those without that it didn't make sense. The difference in risk didn't justify the overhead to maintain a different policy.

Go ahead, call your insurance agent. Ask them if having a gun in the home affects the rate for a general liability policy. I dare ya.

Insurance companies know what they are doing.

> . I dare ya.

FUNNY! I did just that.

Nope, not covered. Not defensive use of a gun, either. Not in any state.

You're wrong, as usual. Still batting .000. Don't worry, your constant error-state is due to your Gun Religion blindness. Get rid of that, and you'll be right more often.

The question was whether or not having a gun in your home affects your liability premium.

> The question was whether or not having a gun in your home affects your liability premium.

I have no idea where you got that nutsy idea, since that wasn't what I've been talking about in *ANY* of my posts in this thread. I've been talking about insurance against the losses your Precious would cause if you used it to shoot somebody.

Somebody call the WHAMMMBULANCE on the Delicate Flowers!

If I shoot someone illegally, my policy would not pay a dime. Nor would any policy anywhere.

If I shoot someone accidentally, my liability would be covered up to one million dollars.

I'm still typing realllllllllyyyyyyyyyyy slowly, and you're still missing it.

Try reading my posts realllllllyyyyyyyyyy slowly, respond to them and not what you fantasize I'm posting.

In addition, if you shoot somebody *with justification* and get sued, your policy *doesn't* cover you.

(I took 10 minutes to type the above 3 sentences, in hopes you'd finally understand)

I say "tough shit."

We were talking about liability insurance (you know, the topic of the original post) and Mainer's post #60 about whether or not insurance rates go up for homeowners who have guns. They do not.

Mainer asked in post #63 why homeowners with guns don't pay higher premiums, since people with big dogs do. I responded in post 64 that the risk is minuscule per gun owner (or per gun).

That's apparently where you took a right turn into some other conversation with someone else.

Care to come back to us, and talk about liability insurance, and why there's no difference in premiums for those with or without guns in their homes?

If you want to place a bet on it, I will give you the insurance agent's name.

But in return for the loss of my privacy, you will have to put up a bond for $100,000. You will also have to publicly apologize to me. And I'll have to have this in writing.

Calling me a liar? The Delicate Flowers are NUTS. They're going over the brink.

I won't alert on you calling me a liar. I'm not as delicate as you Flowers are.

But sure, give me the agent's name in a PM, and I'd be happy to call him or her, posing as a random customer, asking about coverage for a general liability policy, and whether the rate changes based on whether or not I have a gun in the home.

Have any of my posts talked about liability costs if you have a gun?

Try reading my posts before responding to them.

Sheesh.

hard to argue tangible metrics.

A gun, not so.

Because the risk differential is so slight it's not worth the hassle.

Yeesh!

A car accident is an accident.

A massacre is intentional. And forcing gun humpers to buy what is hopefully very expensive insurance might deter a few of them.

the odds of any one legal gun owner causing harm with his weapons is so low that and the pool of insured gun owners so large that it would cost a pittance.

There is a reason that insurance companies don't presently charge gun owners more on their home owners policies - the risk is so negligible. Now having a swimming pool or a big dog is a different matter - that can cost some money.

I get a discount on my homeowner's policy for being a non-smoker. That's a small one.

I get a much larger one for having smoke detectors. I wouldn't think that would be very likely to reduce the amount of damage from a fire, but apparently they do help a lot.

Frankly I think my personal policy of not burning candles in my home is more important. I can't count the number of times I was scared that my ex-wife was going to burn the place down with her love of candles combined with her tendency to forget about things and walk away.

going to pay medical bills?

HTH

Crime isn't insurable. No amount of foot-stomping or whining would make it so.

Needless to say all guns and magazines would have to be registered.

I would set the yearly tax on magazines at $1 per bullet capacity. The tax on semi-auto handguns would be around $100 to $150 per year depending on whether it's single column or double column. The tax on an assault gun would be $300 a year but I would also include a multiplier for that based on the number of compatible magazines the owner has. Guns that don't require removable magazines and are not Semi-auto would be taxed at much lower rates.

Here's my formula for taxing an assualt type Semi-auto weapon. Lets suppose the gun owner has 6, 30 round magazines for the weapon too.

$300 tax for the gun
$1 per bullet capacity for each magazine 6 magazines X 30 rounds = $180
For what I would term the deadly force multiplier I would take the total capacity of all the compatible magazines for the weapon. If an owner has more than one example of the same weapon then all the magazines for both weapons would be used in this calculation. In this case 6 X 30 = 180 and that would be used as a percentage in this way.
($300 + $180) X 180% = $864 yearly tax

I would however offer a gun owner facing a large tax bill the option of surrendering his gun in exchange for a tax credit worth the market value of the gun.

According to FBI statistics, handguns make up a majority of homicides. If I recall correctly, "hands and feet" kill more people than rifles annually. AR15s and "assault weapons" belonging to the rifle category, make up only a percentage of that smaller portion.

So what's the logic/justification behind having assault weapons cost more to insure when thy do less harm?