????美國保險企業在鼓勵戒煙、甚至是提高駕駛安全性方面都曾奉獻過一己之力，然而，在降低美國的暴力案件發生率方面，這個行業是否也能發揮同樣的作用？

????雖然讓保險公司改變業務模式是一種苛求，但一小部分國家立法人員卻認為這是可行的。自12月康州紐鎮桑迪胡克小學（Sandy Hook Elementary School）發生槍擊慘案之后，國家立法人員將責任險視為遏制槍支和暴力問題的一種較為經濟的方式。本月，加州提交了一項法案，要求槍支所有者購買責任險，用于賠付其槍支造成的損害或傷害。加州由此加入了康州、馬里蘭州、麻州、賓夕法尼亞州和紐約州的行列，因為這些州此前已經提交了類似的法案。

????上周之前，保險行業對這些法案一直漠不關心。美國保險協會（American Insurance Association）是一家財產-災害保險交易組織，代表著約300名險企。這個協會上周二表示，要求槍支所有者購買責任險的做法弊大于利。

????該組織在上周二發表的聲明中提到：“即使保險公司可以承保槍支犯罪，它帶來的影響可能會與其初衷背道而馳?！贝祟惙ò笗寴屝邓姓咦兊煤翢o顧慮，因為事發后他們在收入、資產或財產方面基本上沒有什么損失。

????險企抵制這類法案的態度很明確。而且在某種程度上，它也說明了美國槍支問題的嚴重性。值得觀望的是，保險行業是否會迫于公眾關于槍支辯論的壓力而改變承保政策。保險行業的反對人士表示，即便這些法案最終得以通過，保險公司也沒有義務提供這個類別的保險產品。

????推行責任險的用意在于提高槍支擁有成本，藉此提高人們擁有槍支的門檻。這個想法或許行得通，然而，它對緩解人們對桑迪胡克槍擊案重演的擔憂并沒有太大的作用。槍殺是蓄意的暴力行為，并不是事故。保險信息協會（Insurance Information Institute）會長、經濟學家羅伯特?哈特維格表示，美國險企一般只對事故進行賠付，而且通常情況下并不對蓄意行為進行賠付。

????哈特維格說：“現有的所有立法（議案）都沒有對此加以區分?！?/p>

????不管怎么樣，對于賠償槍支事故的受害者來說，保險是一種不錯的方式。例如，在打獵過程中，槍支走火，一如2006年涉及前美國總統迪克?切尼的離奇事故。同樣，如果槍支在私人住所走火，那么房主保單的承保方將對受害者進行賠付。

????現實在于，很多因槍支而引發的死亡并非都源于事故。美國疾病預防和控制中心（Centers for Disease Control and Prevention）的最新數據顯示，2010年，美國因槍殺而引發的死亡人數達3萬名，其中有近2萬名是自殺。因此，責任險的反對人士稱，此類保險的賠付范圍很難界定。

????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.