Illinois wants Gun ID with $1 M of Insurance

[JXJohns]

@Richard_Parker

I already posted a cite to that effect earlier in the thread.

You did? I saw this:

*The role of stolen guns in crime is well documented and surprisingly important. Cook et al. report that about 567,000 guns are stolen in the U.S. each year, with 90% of these taken from households. They also report that about one in seven residential burglaries results in gun theft, with an average take of 1.9 guns, and that in almost half of the burglaries involving guns the only
items stolen are guns and money. Cook et al. conclude that a majority of the transactions supplying guns to criminals involve stolen guns, and Wright and Rossi suggest that up to 70% of the guns used by criminals are stolen guns.

I didn’t see any cites regarding not reporting stolen guns. In fact, those stats you provided wouldn’t be available unless people WERE reporting their stuff stolen. Right?

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.

In a mandatory environment, insurance companies are under no compunction to do such a thing. They know that everyone in Ill who owns a FOID card must also have insurance. There is no incentive for them to offer a discount because the legal owners will comply. That is what we do.

[Richard_Parker]

@begbert2

I dispute your cavalier assumption that there are not already incentives to using gun safes

All incentives are marginal incentives.

@JXJohns

You did?

Yes, I quoted the ATF right above the passage you note.

@JXJohns

In a mandatory environment, insurance companies are under no compunction to do such a thing. They know that everyone in Ill who owns a FOID card must also have insurance. There is no incentive for them to offer a discount because the legal owners will comply. That is what we do.

Refer to the earlier argumentation about economic incentives. That’s just not how a competitive market works. If you think the insurance companies will collude, that’s one thing. But a little evidence for that belief would be nice. If they don’t collude over mandatory car insurance, why would this be different?

[JXJohns]

@Richard_Parker

Yes, I quoted the ATF right above the passage you note.

Gotcha, thanks.

Refer to the earlier argumentation about economic incentives. That’s just not how a competitive market works. If you think the insurance companies will collude, that’s one thing. But a little evidence for that belief would be nice. If they don’t collude over mandatory car insurance, why would this be different?

Mandatory insurance is not part of a competitive environment. If everyone HAS to have it, there is no competition. Carriers know that if they don’t get Bob’s business there is a equal chance that they will get Mary’s because the folks who want stay legal, have no other option.

There is no logistical way possible for carriers to insure that people really keep their shit locked up in a State of Ill approved safe, or if they instead keep their guns loaded and on their kitchen table. As such, they really can’t get the underwriters to support discounts because there is absolutely no way to insure, like a seat belt or an air bag, or the color white, that the policy holder is holding up their end of the bargain.

[Richard_Parker]

@JXJohns

Mandatory insurance is not part of a competitive environment. If everyone HAS to have it, there is no competition. Carriers know that if they don’t get Bob’s business there is a equal chance that they will get Mary’s because the folks who want stay legal, have no other option.

But this is just empirically wrong. Car insurance is mandatory, and yet we see plenty of competition over price and efforts to discount premiums based on safe behavior.

@JXJohns

There is no logistical way possible for carriers to insure that people really keep their shit locked up in a State of Ill approved safe, or if they instead keep their guns loaded and on their kitchen table. As such, they really can’t get the underwriters to support discounts because there is absolutely no way to insure, like a seat belt or an air bag, or the color white, that the policy holder is holding up their end of the bargain.

Explain to me the difference between a discount for drivers whose cars have seat belts (or, for teenagers, good report cards) and a discount for gun owners whose homes have gun safes.

[JXJohns]

@Richard_Parker

But this is just empirically wrong. Car insurance is mandatory, and yet we see plenty of competition over price and efforts to discount premiums based on safe behavior.

Explain to me the difference between a discount for drivers whose cars have seat belts (or, for teenagers, good report cards) and a discount for gun owners whose homes have gun safes.

Seat belts are mandated by federal law and are installed in every single car sold in the US for the last 30+ years. People cannot buy a new car without them. The underwriters can offer a discount if they so choose because it’s a guarantee that the seat belts exist and are installed.

There is no way for a carrier to guarantee to their underwriters that a policy holder actually has a safe in their home, that it meets any sort of standards, or that the holder actually uses it. To do so, we are now talking about a major breach of privacy.

[Richard_Parker]

@JXJohns

Seat belts are mandated by federal law and are installed in every single car sold in the US for the last 30+ years. People cannot buy a new car without them. The underwriters can offer a discount if they so choose because it’s a guarantee that the seat belts exist and are installed.

The point about seat belts was historical. If you prefer, substitute side impact air bags.

@JXJohns

There is no way for a carrier to guarantee to their underwriters that a policy holder actually has a safe in their home, that it meets any sort of standards, or that the holder actually uses it. To do so, we are now talking about a major breach of privacy.

There are certification standards for safes. It wouldn’t be that difficult. And in any case, everything you just said is equally true of air bags (many of which now have an on/off switch) and equally true of, say, good grades.

[JXJohns]

@Richard_Parker

The point about seat belts was historical. If you prefer, substitute side impact air bags.

There are certification standards for safes. It wouldn’t be that difficult. And in any case, everything you just said is equally true of air bags (many of which now have an on/off switch) and equally true of, say, good grades.

I’m about done with this topic as the new administration has made it a goal to pass another Assault Weapon ban. Bigger fish to fry and all that. My final point, and one that I tried in vain to make earlier is this. If a car has a seatbelt, it has a seatbelt. If is has an airbag it is there and it should work. Discounts can be given for marketing reasons.

If a gun owner says he has a safe, short of an in home visit, there is no proof. In addition, just because he has a safe, there is no way to prove that he actually locks his guns in it. Because of that, an underwriter is not going to promote a discount because there are too many unknowns. Underwriters hate unknowns.