(Political cartoon drawn by Dave Granlund. Source: Sturgis Journal.)

Firearms have become a leading cause of death among young Americans, ages 1 to 14 [1]. In 2022, firearm injury deaths among this age group accounted for 1,120,312 years of potential life lost before the age of 65—a life threat that outweighs the risks of diabetes, stroke, and liver disease combined [2]. Nearly all fifty states, since the turn of the millennium, have been the sites of school shootings, and the number of school shooting incidents, victims, and deaths has appeared to increase dramatically over the last six years [3]. In the past four years alone, 921 individuals have fallen victim to 1,210 separate incidents of gun violence on K-12 school property. Often, the perpetrators of firearm violence in American schools are students themselves, accounting for nearly 40 percent of all school shooters from a 1966-2024 database [4]. Over 50 percent of school shootings between 1990 and 2016 stemmed from an adolescent shooter acquiring the weapon from a family member [5]. Around 20 percent of firearms used in school shootings belonged to a friend or acquaintance, and another 20 percent were purchased from the illegal market [6]. 56 percent of the weapons used in these instances were classified as semi-automatic or automatic rifles and 59 percent of firearms used in school shootings between 1990 and 2016 were generally considered to be moderate or high-power weapons [7]. These statistics suggest that gun violence in American schools has crystallized into a pressing public health concern as adolescents throughout the country bring lethal force to classroom discussions with their peers, power trips often made possible by their irresponsible family members.

To address the role of parental negligence in perpetuating school firearm violence, recent legal prosecution has pursued the conviction of the parents of adolescent shooters. While not directly involved in the execution of the crime itself, parents play an integral role in providing adolescent shooters with the means to critically endanger their lives and the lives of their classmates, teachers, and school staff. The first case that involved the prosecution of parents for a mass school shooting concluded in March 2024 with the sentencing of Jennifer and James Crumbley, parents of Oxford Michigan shooter Ethan Crumbley, to at least 10 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter [8]. In this particular case, the prosecution found evidence of the Crumbleys’ negligent parenting, citing in the criminal complaint multiple instances in which the parents knew their son Ethan Crumbley was mentally struggling and displaying visibly erratic behavior in and out of school [9]. The complaint also outlines that James Crumbley, who purchased the handgun used in the school shooting, posted on Instagram a picture of his son Ethan holding the handgun [10].

Similarly, Ethan’s mother Jennifer posted photographs of a punctured paper target at a shooting range on Instagram, captioning “Mom and son day, testing out his new X-mas present” [11]. Upon searching the Crumbleys’ home on the day of the shooting, the police discovered an opened gun case belonging to the shooter’s weapon next to an empty box of ammunition. Due to their grossly negligent conduct, the prosecution aimed to make examples out of Jennifer and James Crumbley, whose lack of diligence and reasonable care allowed their minor child to access a firearm and ammunition and kill four individuals. The first of its kind, this case intended to highlight the role of parental negligence in perpetuating in-school gun violence, emphasizing the need for enhanced responsibility mechanisms to ensure that adults exercise greater caution and heightened security when possessing and storing firearms.

Therefore, gun liability insurance poses a novel solution that would effectively propel the intended messaging behind parental prosecution in gun violence cases: increasing the costs of gun ownership to sanction the role of adult negligence in this uniquely American issue. Gun liability insurance provides gun owners with coverage for damages, including death or injury, that may result from unintended harms associated with firearm use [12]. Similar to how a driver’s monthly premium increases if they are responsible for vehicle accidents, gun liability insurance would force gun owners to pay higher financial costs if firearms registered to their names are used to inflict injury or death. However, as this form of insurance is a liability policy that aims to sanction gun owners for their negligence, gun liability insurance would not cover acts of self-defense or other intentional and lawful uses of firearms. If states were to enforce federal mandates for gun liability insurance for all registered firearm owners, gun owners would bear financial costs for their irresponsible firearm possession and use, which has proven to be a catalyst for the American gun violence epidemic. Additionally, given the patchwork nature of firearm regulations throughout the United States, a federal mandate for gun liability insurance to lawfully possess firearms would remedy state-to-state discrepancies in regulation, dedicating a healthy level of governmental concern for societal well-being to safe practices tied to Second Amendment rights. 

Gun liability insurance would not necessarily limit the type of weapons adults can purchase and own, but would heighten buyers’ sense of personal responsibility and create a national standard of care regarding how to store weapons [13]. Gun liability insurance’s focus on both personal and community safety and responsibility directly addresses the centrality of gross negligence in school gun violence tragedies. A federal firearm liability insurance requirement for lawful gun ownership would diminish incentives for adults to provide firearm access to minors, increase security measures in the home to minimize any undesired increases in insurance premiums, mitigate private-party sales of unregistered guns, and create a national precedent that sees irresponsible firearm use and inadequate storage procedures as humanitarian failures rather than topics of political debate. In the school environment, these effects of gun liability insurance would manifest in lessened risks of gun violence in schools as there are heightened financial and legal repercussions for parental negligence and faulty firearm storage. Given that the average age of school shooters at the time of the incident over the last 27 years is about 16 years old and the majority of such young killers access weapons from family and friends, gun liability insurance would address the cause of the issue rather than its symptoms [14, 15]. These trends in the ages of perpetrators and their sources of access correlate the prevalence of American gun violence in schools largely to adult negligence. Therefore, increasing the financial weight of gun ownership would strongly condemn half-hearted and blasé perspectives among adults on the seriousness of firearm ownership and proper storage.

In fact, some regions of the United States have recently implemented gun liability insurance policies in an attempt to curb mass shootings after inaction by Congress. On February 8, 2022, San Jose, California, became the first jurisdiction in the United States to adopt a liability insurance mandate after the city witnessed several mass shootings. Importantly, San Jose’s mandate did not place additional burdens on gun owners, allowing gun owners to satisfy the mandate by holding a homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policy that covered accidental firearm-related death, injury, or damage. A Northern District of California Judge found that this city ordinance did “not condition ownership on complying with the Insurance Requirement, as non-compliance with the Ordinance can only result in an administrative citation,” and the City was granted “no authority to seize a person’s gun” [16]. In the case of the National Association for Gun Rights v. San Jose, the Judge ruled that the city’s policy did not infringe on the right to possess or own a firearm, establishing that the insurance ordinance provided a legal avenue to safe gun ownership. In December 2022, New Jersey became the first U.S. state to implement a gun liability insurance mandate. However, New Jersey’s mandate entailed more financial costs of gun ownership than San Jose’s legislation, requiring gun owners to obtain gun permits and purchase insurance policies independent of homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policies with a coverage limit of at least $300,000 [17]. Despite using the same Bruen test and historical statutes as the Northern District of California, the District of New Jersey in Koons v. Platkin held that the New Jersey mandate was unconstitutional and inhibited activities protected by the Second Amendment [18]. Considering the legal shortcomings and successes of both of these cases, there exists potential for lawful implementation of liability insurance policies in the United States. 

While the legality of gun liability insurance has been the subject of adjudication, questions of equity and affordability are just as important to consider. Requirements for gun liability coverage included in homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policies pose little to no added financial barriers for gun owners. Insurance providers who exclusively provide gun liability insurance most often offer their coverage for $15 to $30 per month, which is a cost that states can and should reasonably impose on registered owners in an effort to save lives [19]. While adding a price tag to gun ownership may seem to make guns less accessible to eligible owners, the average monthly costs of insurance are marginal enough that owning firearm insurance does not dramatically increase financial pressures on owners. The price of insurance may increase, though, if an owner exercises their Second Amendment rights with carelessness and neglect for themselves and their communities. Additionally, pushback from gun manufacturers regarding liability insurance mandates remains a possibility. “Big Gun,” the industry giant in the gun manufacturing industry, has traditionally conducted itself with a profit-over-people approach to economic prosperity [20]. Gun liability insurance will thus place greater responsibility on “Big Gun” by shifting mass shooting risk onto such corporations as insurance makes it less desirable to purchase, own, and store guns due to enhanced financial costs placed on negligent owners. In turn, capital-driven manufacturers will face fundamental challenges to their historical immunity through lawsuits against the companies themselves and gun liability insurance mandates, unveiling the “collateral socio-economic damage” such firearm providers have caused that has become “more evident than ever” [21].

Firearms have become a leading cause of death among American children below the age of fourteen [23]. With every act of negligence, an innocent life falls victim to firearms. Each life lost is more than just a statistic—rather, each life lost is a testament to how the legal status quo has prioritized profits and political noise over actual people. Each life lost is another reason why gun liability insurance should be considered a viable solution to the American gun violence epidemic, ensuring that generations of young Americans are protected in their educational communities.