The article is unclear, but it seems there is only once insurance policy: the one taken out by the city. Gun owners are just paying a fee to support the premium

The article is unclear, but it seems there is only once insurance policy: the one taken out by the city. Gun owners are just paying a fee to support the premiums. That means there is no risk pool (unless lots of other cities have this policy). If there’s no risk pool, the insurance company is simply taking the probability of a mass shooting and multiplying it by the cost. That doesn’t make too much sense from the cities perspective. It would be cheaper to self-insure, or simply rely on taxes to generate the needed revenue. Unless the city is requiring all gun owners to contact their insurer and get a policy (which the article seems to contradict), this move doesn’t make much sense. It seems like a pretext to discourage gun ownership.