Opinion | A pragmatic solution? A National Gun Injury Compensation Program.

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Minnesota families are living with the daily costs of gun violence, and those costs are measured not only in dollars but in fear, disruption and grief. In Mankato, congregations are investing scarce resources in active-shooter training just to worship in peace, redirecting time and money that could have gone toward community service or youth programs. In Stewartville, deputies rushed to a school after a tragic incident that rattled the entire community, leaving parents anxious and children shaken. And in Minneapolis, a shooting at Annunciation Church underscored how even sacred spaces — places meant for refuge and healing — are vulnerable to sudden violence.

These events remind us that the burden of firearm harm is not abstract. It is borne by our communities, our hospitals and our households, and it reshapes daily life in ways both visible and hidden.

But Minnesota is not alone. Recently, Brown University was shaken by a campus shooting that left students and faculty reeling. The incident made national headlines, but the aftermath is familiar: families scrambling for support, hospitals absorbing uncompensated care and institutions diverting resources to security instead of education.

Whether in Minnesota or Rhode Island, the pattern is the same. Local communities are left to carry costs that should be shared nationally.

The courts have made clear that the Second Amendment protects broad firearm access. That reality constrains regulation. But when government sanctions widespread gun ownership, it also inherits a duty: to protect life and promote the general welfare. Right now, that duty is unmet. Families face staggering medical bills, lost income and funeral costs. Hospitals absorb millions in uncompensated care. Local governments scramble to cover gaps. There is no consistent safety net for survivors.

Minnesota cannot bear these costs alone, nor can any single state. Gun violence is a national crisis, and its financial and moral burdens cross state lines. A federal program ensures equity: families in Rhode Island, Minnesota or Texas would receive the same survivor benefits. Hospitals nationwide would see relief from uncompensated trauma care. Taxpayers would gain transparency about the true costs of firearm harm. And prevention funding could be distributed to communities most in need, guided by national data.

The program would deliver prompt medical, rehabilitation and survivor support. Coverage would include hospital care, counseling, lost earnings, funeral expenses and even relocation support for families facing ongoing threats. At its core would be a Survivor Life Benefit — a public life insurance policy that guarantees immediate relief. Families would receive a $250,000 base payment per firearm fatality, with supplements for dependent children and an emergency advance within seven days. This ensures households are not left waiting while bills pile up. Funding would come from a blended model: a modest excise surcharge on firearms and ammunition, federal appropriations, manufacturer safety fees and optional state contributions. Importantly, a prevention set-aside would reinvest 5-10% of receipts into evidence-based community and hospital violence intervention programs. That means the program would not only compensate victims but also reduce future harm.

For families, this program would mean immediate household relief. For hospitals, it would reduce uncompensated care. For taxpayers, it would provide transparent accounting of firearm harm costs. And for policymakers, it would offer a durable, bipartisan framework focused on victim relief rather than endless battles over regulation. By combining compensation with prevention, the program delivers both justice and public health benefits.

Critics may argue that such a program is unprecedented. But the principle is simple: If government protects gun access, it must also protect those harmed by it. This is not about infringing rights. It is about fulfilling responsibilities. Just as we provide compensation for workplace injuries or terrorism victims, we should provide relief for families harmed by gun violence. The program respects lawful ownership while ensuring equity for victims.

From Minnesota communities to Brown University classrooms, Americans are living with the consequences of gun violence. Local communities cannot shoulder these burdens alone. A National Gun Injury Compensation Program offers a path forward: constitutionally grounded, fiscally responsible and morally necessary. It ensures that when tragedy strikes, families receive immediate support. It reinvests in prevention to reduce future harm. And it delivers justice without infringing on lawful ownership. Gun rights come with responsibilities. It is time for the federal government to accept them.