By Kerri Raissian, Jennifer Necci Dineens

Insurance companies may be in a unique position to mitigate firearm-related deaths, injuries, and other harms in the United States. Insurers have played a prominent role in helping reduce injury and death in at least two other significant areas: automotive accidents and swimming pool drownings. In those cases, insurance firms were able to make meaningful societal change simply by compelling their customers to wear seatbelts and put fences around their pools. Firearms may be more difficult for insurance companies to detect than automobiles or swimming pools. For example, firearm owners are not required to declare their firearms (nor are we advocating for this), and so an insurer may not have accurate information regarding the presence of firearms. However, insurance companies face similar knowledge gaps with other behaviors, too (e.g., smoking or past drug-use behaviors). Insurance companies have a history of innovating with regard to risky behaviors to limit risk, and in many ways, firearms are no different. 

The National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation estimates gun injury had an economic cost of $557 billion in 2022.1 Meanwhile, there is mounting evidence that measures like secure storage and safety counseling significantly improve firearm safety in a cost-effective manner. So, why have insurance firms declined to act? It appears the insurance markets do not believe the proper incentives exist to bring about voluntary, preventive action. Yet if they did act, the societal benefits would likely outweigh the costs. Given this potential cost-benefit calculation, legislators, regulators, and insurance industry leaders should explore interventions to spur safety innovation. The range of actions could include: 

• Conducting research to better understand how firearms relate to insurer damages and the potential to mitigate those risks 

• Voluntarily encouraging policyholders to consider options such as secure storage or safety counseling 

• Taking legislative and regulatory steps to encourage or subsidize voluntary innovations and improve incentive structures 

• Potentially imposing mandates 

This paper explores the different types of firearm-related harms in America and the various opportunities and mechanisms by which insurance markets could potentially work to reduce those harms.

Washington, DC: Niskanen Center, 2025. 13p.

By Thomas James Vaughan Williams, Calli Tzani & Maria Ioannou

There has been a noticeable rise in the number of mass shootings occurring in the US over the last decade with these attacks often being committed by a lone actor. This article aims to explore this, focusing on the time suspension between when the lone actor acquires their firearm and when they commit their attack. The cases involved all occurred in the US and all perpetrators obtained their firearms legally. The results found that, on average, lone actors obtained their firearms 54 days before they committed their mass shooting. Implications, limitations and future research are discussed in detail.

Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 1–9

By Wyatt Lutenbacher

Gaps in federal regulation have allowed “privately made firearms,” or “ghost guns,” to proliferate. Until August 2022, “firearm kits,” which allowed for easy assembly of functional firearms without serial numbers, could be purchased without a background check. Federal law and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) have historically regulated assembled weapons rather than firearm components, and as a result, firearm kits have circumvented traditional firearm regulations. As a result, state and federal regulations have now had to try to adapt accordingly. Yet in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the United States Supreme Court unsettled many firearm regulations by creating a new test for the Second Amendment that focuses on history and tradition.

This Note posits that ghost guns are a problem not seriously addressed by federal regulations. To address these regulatory gaps, this Note will analyze proposed and potential administrative and legislative solutions, then defend them under the Bruen test. First, this Note will begin by describing the ghost gun epidemic and the relevant Second Amendment law, specifically the Bruen test. Next, it will present and analyze both current and proposed federal regulations and legislation targeting ghost guns. Finally, this Note will conclude by arguing that these current and proposed solutions are constitutional under Bruen.

42 Minn J. L. & Inequality 253 (2025)