枪支责任险能遏制枪杀案吗？

    美国保险企业在鼓励戒烟、甚至是提高驾驶安全性方面都曾奉献过一己之力，然而，在降低美国的暴力案件发生率方面，这个行业是否也能发挥同样的作用？

    虽然让保险公司改变业务模式是一种苛求，但一小部分国家立法人员却认为这是可行的。自12月康州纽镇桑迪胡克小学（Sandy Hook Elementary School）发生枪击惨案之后，国家立法人员将责任险视为遏制枪支和暴力问题的一种较为经济的方式。本月，加州提交了一项法案，要求枪支所有者购买责任险，用于赔付其枪支造成的损害或伤害。加州由此加入了康州、马里兰州、麻州、宾夕法尼亚州和纽约州的行列，因为这些州此前已经提交了类似的法案。

    上周之前，保险行业对这些法案一直漠不关心。美国保险协会（American Insurance Association）是一家财产-灾害保险交易组织，代表着约300名险企。这个协会上周二表示，要求枪支所有者购买责任险的做法弊大于利。

    该组织在上周二发表的声明中提到：“即使保险公司可以承保枪支犯罪，它带来的影响可能会与其初衷背道而驰。”此类法案会让枪械所有者变得毫无顾虑，因为事发后他们在收入、资产或财产方面基本上没有什么损失。

    险企抵制这类法案的态度很明确。而且在某种程度上，它也说明了美国枪支问题的严重性。值得观望的是，保险行业是否会迫于公众关于枪支辩论的压力而改变承保政策。保险行业的反对人士表示，即便这些法案最终得以通过，保险公司也没有义务提供这个类别的保险产品。

    推行责任险的用意在于提高枪支拥有成本，藉此提高人们拥有枪支的门槛。这个想法或许行得通，然而，它对缓解人们对桑迪胡克枪击案重演的担忧并没有太大的作用。枪杀是蓄意的暴力行为，并不是事故。保险信息协会（Insurance Information Institute）会长、经济学家罗伯特•哈特维格表示，美国险企一般只对事故进行赔付，而且通常情况下并不对蓄意行为进行赔付。

    哈特维格说：“现有的所有立法（议案）都没有对此加以区分。”

    不管怎么样，对于赔偿枪支事故的受害者来说，保险是一种不错的方式。例如，在打猎过程中，枪支走火，一如2006年涉及前美国总统迪克•切尼的离奇事故。同样，如果枪支在私人住所走火，那么房主保单的承保方将对受害者进行赔付。

    现实在于，很多因枪支而引发的死亡并非都源于事故。美国疾病预防和控制中心（Centers for Disease Control and Prevention）的最新数据显示，2010年，美国因枪杀而引发的死亡人数达3万名，其中有近2万名是自杀。因此，责任险的反对人士称，此类保险的赔付范围很难界定。

    U.S. insurers have helped discourage smoking and have even made driving safer, but can the industry also make America a less violent place?

    It's a tall order that would ask insurers to change the way they do business, but a handful of state lawmakers think so. Since December's tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., state lawmakers have turned to liability insurance as an economic way to ease the horrendous problems of guns and violence. This month, California proposed a law that would require gun owners to buy liability insurance, which would cover damages or injuries caused by their weapons. The state joins Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New York, which have proposed similar bills.

    Until this week, the insurance industry had been pretty mum about the proposals. The American Insurance Association, a property-casualty trade group that represent about 300 insurers, said on Tuesday that requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance would do more harm than good.

    "Even if insurance could be written for gun crimes, it could have the opposite of its intended effect," the group said in a statement released Tuesday. Such laws could lead to recklessness by gun owners who have little to lose in the way of income, assets or property.

    Insurers clearly resist the idea. And in a way, it speaks to the severity of America's problems with guns. It will be worth watching whether public pressures over the gun debate will force the industry to change the way it writes policies. Even if the laws pass, insurance companies aren't obligated to offer that type of coverage, opponents from the industry say.

    What's behind the push for liability insurance is to make it more costly and therefore harder for people to own guns. That might very well happen, but it might do less to ease any fears of another Sandy Hook. The shooting was a deliberate act of violence, not an accident. U.S. insurers typically compensate accidents, but the industry generally doesn't cover intentional acts, says Robert Hartwig, president and economist at the Insurance Information Institute.

    "None of the [proposed] legislation out there makes that distinction," Hartwig says.

    Nonetheless, insurance would be a good idea to compensate victims of gun accidents. Say on a hunting trip a gun accidentally goes off, similar to the freak accident involving former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney in 2006. Likewise, if a gun accidentally fires off at a private home, the liability part of a homeowner's insurance policy would compensate the victim.

    The reality is that the bulk of deaths from guns is not entirely accidental. In 2010, nearly 20,000 of the 30,000 deaths from guns in the U.S. were suicides, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And so, as opponents of liability insurance argue, it's hard to see whom the insurance would pay out.