????盡管如此，經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家還是列出了持有槍支的價(jià)格成本，密歇根大學(xué)（University of Michigan）經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)教授賈斯丁?沃爾夫斯最近通過(guò)美國(guó)國(guó)家公共電臺(tái)（NPR）也對(duì)此進(jìn)行了說(shuō)明。成本不僅包括購(gòu)買(mǎi)槍支的實(shí)際花費(fèi)，而且還包括經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家所謂的“社會(huì)成本”——即槍殺無(wú)辜人士之后可能引發(fā)的悲痛和損失的價(jià)格成本。沃爾夫斯引用了2005年的一項(xiàng)調(diào)查寫(xiě)道，對(duì)于持有槍支的家庭來(lái)說(shuō)，這一成本的區(qū)間是100-1,800美元/年。

????雖然責(zé)任險(xiǎn)可以用于支付這個(gè)成本，但人們不禁會(huì)想，就算那些窮兇惡極、持有槍支的暴力犯罪分子會(huì)進(jìn)行槍支注冊(cè)，但是也沒(méi)有多少人會(huì)購(gòu)買(mǎi)責(zé)任險(xiǎn)，因?yàn)榉芍袥](méi)有規(guī)定。

????麻州眾議員大衛(wèi)?林斯基在1月提交了一份法案，要求對(duì)不投保的槍支持有者處以罰款或關(guān)押。他說(shuō)，不管怎么樣，責(zé)任險(xiǎn)可以降低事故率——那些對(duì)槍支進(jìn)行安全儲(chǔ)存的槍支所有者將支付較少的保費(fèi)。

????正如沃爾夫斯所建議的那樣，如果有責(zé)任險(xiǎn)的存在，桑迪胡克槍擊案可能會(huì)有所不同。

????他寫(xiě)道：“這是一種謹(jǐn)慎的解決方案，它既可以讓喜歡打獵的人們繼續(xù)追求自己的愛(ài)好，也會(huì)敦促人們采取預(yù)防措施，而且人們也都希望蘭扎一家（桑迪胡克槍擊案兇手的家庭——譯注）在一開(kāi)始就能采取這一預(yù)防措施?！比欢?，保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)最終會(huì)同意這么做嗎？（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????Nonetheless, economists have come up with the price of owning a gun, as University of Michigan economics professor Justin Wolfers recently noted to NPR . It's not just the actual cost of buying the weapon, but there's also what economists call "social costs" -- the price of grief and loss that might follow if the gun were used to take the lives of innocent people. This could run anywhere between $100 and $1,800 per year for a gun-owning household, Wolfer writes, citing a 2005 study.

????Liability insurance might compensate for such costs, but it's also hard not to wonder if the most violent criminals that own guns would even register their weapons anyway, much less buy liability insurance because the law says so.

????Regardless, liability insurance could reduce accidents -- owners who store their weapons safely would pay less for insurance, as Massachusetts State Rep. David Linsky said when he introduced a bill in January to fine or jail anyone found in possession of a gun without insurance.

????As Wolfer suggests, liability insurance might have made a difference in the Sandy Hook shootings.

????"It's the sort of careful solution that would enable people who enjoy hunting to continue with their passions but also push them to take the sorts of precautions that we all wish the Lanza household had taken," he writes.

????Could insurers eventually agree?