Ah. I’m sorry I didn’t understand that earlier. I get it now.
As to the insurance thing, it isn’t clear to me why the law couldn’t require a person to get insurance which pays out in the event that one of their unreported stolen guns is used in a crime. I understand that this isn’t the normal structure of most insurance.
For those who seem convinced that a comparison can be made between firearms and motor vehicles, here’s a little exercise for you: get a piece of paper, draw a dividing line and write PRO’S and CON’S at the top. Divide those two columns and write FIREARMS and MOTOR VEHICLES at the top of each one. Then start filling in the columns.
Give us a shout when you’ve made the blatantly obvious discovery.
It’s not impossible. However, it is a unique restriction. And I mean singular, unique, and only in this case would it ever have been proposed.
In fact, I’m not sure I’d call it insurance. Insurance is designed to protect the holder of insurance from an event. Eg, if you have a cargo aboard the Titanic, you insure it in case it is lost. If you have a car, you insure it, in case you hurt someone, they sue you, and you are liable and have to pay them.
This is designed to protect a second party from the holder of insurance from the actions of a third party who may illegally possess an object owned by the holder of insurance.
The second party has no legal right to anything of the first party’s, and this law does not make it so. It is literally insurance that can not pay out, as things stand.
Edit: Man, having a signature is a pain. I keep forgetting to turn it off.
Edit twice: Note, I am more testy than usual today. The hoorah over the Pit is probably why. I apologize for the earlier tone of my posts.
Don’t you already do this with pretty much every insurance policy you own? For example, your auto insurance premiums are used to pay claims for, e.g., auto accident victims, even if you weren’t the person at fault in the accident, even if you had nothing whatsoever to do with the accident and never even knew it happened.
Similarly, your healthcare insurance premiums are used to pay for care for, e.g., victims of violence inflicted on them by other persons, even if you were not responsible in any way for what happened.
What seems peculiar to me about the proposed gun insurance is not that it uses premiums collected from innocent law-abiding people to pay for damage inflicted by others, but that it changes the liability status of the policy owner based on whether they’ve reported loss or theft of the gun.
ISTM that the principal purpose of this proposed law is just to put more pressure on gun owners to report lost or stolen guns. But the Illinois Lege already has a bill in the works, HB 0845, that would impose (or increase? dunno what the current consequences of not reporting are) legal penalties for failure to report loss or theft of guns. What’s the point of introducing the insurance issue on top of that?
… weird, Kim. The individual policy does not. Yes, the aggregate policies collectively pay out for things you’re not involved in, but that’s also the nature of insurance, it’s a bet.
You’re saying that because I bet on the Giants to win, my money’s being used on a bet for the Cardinals.
This bill is saying, if I bet on the Giants, then… because Joe stole my ticket and punched Steve, Steve gets the money.
Could you explain more clearly the point you’re trying to make? It seems to me that you’re agreeing with what I said to Dr Cube when he objected to his (hypothetical) gun insurance premiums being used to “collectively pay out for things [he’s] not involved in”.
I responded, and you seem to be agreeing, that that’s what all insurance policies do: it’s the nature of insurance.
The purpose is for the author of the bill to make a name for himself with his constituency, knowing full well the poorly crafted boat will never float while being able to legitimately say “I tried to help, but I got shot down by everybody else”.
The difference is between the individual and the aggregate, Kimstu. If Joe has an accident, my premiums don’t go up, even if his policy is paid out by the actual dollars I paid in.
In this case, if Joe is involved in an incident I have no responsibility for, my premiums would still go up, because of a third party’s illegal efforts.
I’m still not sure I understand your point, but bear with me. You are objecting to the provision that if somebody steals your (hypothetical you) gun and you fail to report it, and a crime is committed by somebody else with that stolen gun, your premiums will go up. Is that right?
If so, it seems to me that it’s a bit different from what Dr Cube seemed to be objecting to, which was the fact that his premiums would be used to pay for damage he wasn’t responsible for (which, as I think you and I agree, is just the way insurance works).
Moreover, isn’t it true that even in the proposed gun insurance legislation, if the policyholder reports the loss of the gun promptly, they won’t be held responsible in any way for damage caused by it and won’t be hit with increased premiums?
In other words, the policyholder is effectively being penalized not for “a third party’s illegal efforts”, but rather for their own failure to report the loss of the gun. If they did report it, they’re in the clear. Right?
This is why I said above that it seems the whole purpose of this legislation is to put pressure on gun owners to report lost or stolen guns. And, as I said above, I don’t see the point of this, given that there’s already a different bill under consideration that would directly require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns.
Isn’t all this mostly moot if it turns out that insurance companies refuse to provide the required gun insurance for anything less than $500 per year per gun? At that price I think we’d see gun ownership Chicago-style: everyone and their grandmother has an unlicensed gun stashed away.
One possibility is that the insurance scheme would not only incentivize reporting, but would also incentivize other measures (such as keeping guns in a safe when not home, etc.).
Aren’t you making an assumption that people ARE NOT reporting their stolen guns now and are in need of an incentive? Or do you have a cite to back that up?
Also, if one has to have insurance as a gun owner, why on earth would that make them any more or less strenuous in their gun storage practices? They are paying for the insurance either way.
I already posted a cite to that effect earlier in the thread.
In an efficient market, the insurance premium would vary depending on whether one owns a gun safe just like car insurance varies based on paint color, safety features, good grades, etc. Premiums would also likely vary depending on whether and how many guns you’ve had stolen, whether you’ve been involved in an accidental shooting, the level of your gun training, etc.
Except owning a gun safe isn’t the same as using it, and there’s no way for the insurance company to track this. So, a person who feels like they need to keep their gun under the pillow for home security will do so regardless, and merely has to make the economic choice of being forced to waste money on a gun safe they don’t want and won’t use, or to be forced to pay a little more per diem on that insurance policy they don’t want and won’t use.
(I remain convinced that this legislation exists to make owning guns more expensive, for the profit of insurance companies, and that all other justifications were invented after the fact.)
Having seat belts in a car doesn’t mean one uses them, passenger air bags can be deactivated, and insurance companies don’t actually check a teenager’s grades before applying the discount. And yet, all three factors make car insurance cheaper.
Right. Which means that car insurance also isn’t an incentivizer to use seatbelts or airbags. This doesn’t help your point, which is that the law will actually make guns harder to steal, and thus have some semblance of benefit to society.
Who is more likely to use a gun safe, the owner of a gun safe or someone who doesn’t own a gun safe? Your argument assumes they are equally likely.
Actually, I strongly suspect that people who are most likely to use gun safes already do. I think the odds of a person buying a gun safe beacuse of the insurance are basically zero. (Which is pretty much the odds I give of a person repainting their car to a ‘safer’ color as a result of discovering they could save a few bucks in insurance by doing so.)
I shouldn’t have said car color because, after a little googling, that appears to be a myth. Nevertheless, people do make other decisions about cars based on the insurance implications. I am currently in the market for a new car, and one of the factors I’m taking into account are insurance costs. You would be irrational not to.
Your argument is basically an argument against economics. That’s fine, but it would be more persuasive if you could point to some kind of market failure. Otherwise, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that a marginal increase in the economic incentive to buy a safe will result in more safes being bought, which will result in more being used.
I dispute your cavalier assumption that there are not already incentives to using gun safes and whatnot that because they involve safety of life and limb do not eclipse any effect that saving a few bucks has. If it is the case that people feel they have life and limb reasons to store some guns in safes and keep others in their purses, then these reasons can be reasonably expected to completely overshadow the effect of the insurance.
In economics, this would be called ‘inelastic’ demand. How tremendous a difference in insurance cost were you speculating these safes would have, by the way?