Maryland House Democrats introduced a controversial gun safety bill requiring gun owners to forfeit their ability to wear or carry without firearm liability insurance.
Introduced by Del. Terri Hill, D-Howard County, the legislation would prohibit the “wear or carry” of a gun anywhere in the state unless the individual has obtained a liability insurance policy of at least $300,000.
"A person may not wear or carry a firearm unless the person has obtained and it covered by liability insurance issued by an insurer authorized to do business in the State under the Insurance Article to cover claims for property damage, bodily injury, or death arising from an accident resulting from the person’s use or storage of a firearm or up to $300,000 for damages arising from the same incident, in addition to interest and costs,” the proposed Maryland legislation reads.
Ahhh, the old “let’s make something a right that only the rich can afford.” For all the “eat the rich” rhetoric here, there seems to be a lot of desire to increase the class divide even more by limiting rights to how much money you have.
It’s already very difficult to nearly impossible to obtain a purchase and carry permit in the state since Maryland is “May issue” state and NOT a “Shall issue” state. This means you can be denied a permit at the whim of local law enforcement unless you have an “in” with whoever is in charge. This is purely performative theater to buy votes.
And the two groups that really should have liability insurance - drug gangs and law enforcement - will be completely unaffected by this requirement.
deleted by creator
You were never a boy scout were you? Ever heard of being prepared? Maybe the phrase “I’d rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it”? Bet the people in the Walmart shooting in Texas a few years ago wish they would have taken their gun into the Walmart.
deleted by creator
Can you run 1200fps?
So your advice to people in an active shooter situation is to always run? Not seek cover? Not stay low and observe the situation? Just run 100% of the time? I pray you don’t take your own advice.
deleted by creator
MD is Shall Issue now, thanks to Bruen. Still very hard to obtain a permit, as you require 16 hours of instruction, passing a live-fire exam, and paying about $200 in fees (on top of the $400 class).
That doesn’t sound that hard.
Well when all the classes are only offered during the week (or charge more for weekend classes), taking two days off work and spending a whole paycheck just on a permit is rather difficult.
Sir, that is unlicensed speech. You’ll need to take 16 hours of a $400 class and pay a $200 fee for a license to speak that way.
It should be a required safety test like with driver’s licenses, a reasonable compromise that you can also add immediate failure states to and doesn’t add an undue time and cost burden to people who aren’t dumbasses, unlike a class.
Get a child safety question wrong?
Fail.
Say you have the right to shoot a fleeing burglar in the back?
Also fail.
you don’t have the right to shoot a burglar in the front. loss of property isn’t an excusable reason to shoot someone. fear of bodily harm or death for you or someone else is.
Varies greatly depending on what state you live in. Texas, being the worst state for almost everything, doesn’t even require it to be your property. You can, in fact, defend your neighbors property with deadly force. You can also shoot them in the back if it’s nighttime.
TIL
Jeez, it sure would be awkward for your argument if a home invasion carried an inherent threat, which is why most robberies occur when no one is home to be threatened.
jeez it sure would be awkward if your argument made any sense. let me put it in caps for you. INHERENT THREAT.
It’s okay to not know what words mean, you’ll figure out how to use a dictionary when you get out of middle school.
But after that you can use that speech to kill a room full of children or a fleeing partner right?
I’m just going to come out and say it: Fuck your gun “rights”. I absolutely support it being taken away from you. It’s just as immoral as the right to own slaves was.
You’re hiding behind the word “right” because you know the only way to defend permissive gun laws is pretending that domestic abusers having poorly secured AR-15s is up there with “bodily autonomy” or “freedom of beliefs”.
Would you be playing your little “only bad guys take away rights” games if people had the “right” to help themselves to your daughters body? To kill you on a whim because of your skin color?
After all, anything you call a “right” is inherently good and ethical and to be preserved at all costs.
Oh shit they made school shootings legal if you have a permit? Missed that update.
Your rights end where another’s begin, you are not entitled to another’s body or life, you are however entitled to the tools with which to defend yourself if someone does try to violate your rights to your body or life. In your scenario, or should I say “currently,” I actually have the right to shoot the rapist or racist murderer.
They may as well given the disgustingly low bar you set for gun owners.
The laws the pro-gun community holds up as ideal couldn’t prevent the sale of a gun to a teenager with the nickname “school shooter” and a history of animal abuse, death and rape threats, days before he did a school shooting.
If you’re going to staunchly oppose gun control, why not just come out and say that you support selling semi-automatic weapons to far-right extremists, deeply disturbed men in the throes of psychosis, people who hit their partners and people who can’t secure their firearms from children?
I think you mean that other people’s rights end where yours begin.
After all, you have no problem bankrolling the gun-lobby who in turn fund the Republicans that openly campaign on a platform of taking away the rights of women and minorities.
Does a child have a right to safety and education? Only at the discretion of whatever insane fuckstick you’ve armed today because your guns are more important that someone else’s children.
And those rapists and murderers have the right to own guns because you insisted on it. Should we look at their statistics to see how that works out for everyone?
Oh what a shocking plot twist, it works out great for your as you sit there delivering on fuck all of your promises and it works out great for the rapists and racists.
Your right come at the expense of others and you’re not even good at hiding it.
Translation: “I don’t know a damn thing about how to buy a gun in the US and I’m probably british.”
If you’re having difficulty parsing the statement it means that you don’t have the right to deprive another of their rights. I know it can be confusing for people like you who don’t like rights, so I understand.
Well find me a gun company that …isn’t a gun company? I guess? What are your standards here lmao? Gotta buy them from the people who sell em, you ever buy weed in the US pre-'10? If yes, you feel bad about supporting the Sinaloa Cartel Lobby? Know what? I blame you, they wouldn’t have to lobby if people weren’t always trying to ban them.
Yes.
Well, not if they are a prohibited purchaser. And I’d rather their victims be able to have them too than just get raped and murdered at knifepoint instead. “You can run from knife,” ahh shaddup you better be fast then with that ableist take, and don’t try to pretend you weren’t about to type that shit either y’all are too predictable.
Yes. According to John Lott, Gary Kleck, and the CDC, the estimate for defensive gun use in the 90s was somewhere between 500,000 and 3,000,000 times per year. The study in question was survey based, and included “defensive display,” which is a defense in which simply making the attacker aware of the presence of a firearm is enough to scare them off. Due to this, and the wide gap between the high/low end, the veracity of this study has been debated. However, according to a recent Harvard study done to discredit that “myth of the good guy with a gun,” they say a “more realistic estimate” of defensive gun use which does NOT include defensive display and is based solely off verifiable police reports is 100,000 per year.
Well, that takes care of the DGU, what about the deaths? Surely more than 100k/yr! Let’s see here, our murder rate yearly according to the FBI is about 15,000/yr.… Hol’ up, 15,000 homicides/yr? Shit, that is MUCH less than 100,000 dgu/yr. Well alright alright I know what’ll get those self defenders! The total gun death rate including homicides, suicides, and accidents! Surely there’s 1,000,000/yr! In 2021, there were a total of 48,830 firearm deaths. Hmm well shit. Turns out that doesn’t do it either, since 48,830<100,000. Damn, I guess guns are used in defense more than deaths. Who’da thunk it?
I’ll twist your twister with the 100,000 people it DID work out great for every year, that’s 51,170 more twists! Get twisted on, go twist yourself.
Your Mama comes at the expense of others, and it isn’t even that expensive.
Oh no! Does the poor little soldier of the resistance need to fill out a form? Do they have to wait a few days? Maybe the poor little snowflakes have to arrange a private sale to dodge a background check?
But sure, we can play this game. Name a state whose gun laws you fully support and we’ll go through them together.
I’m sure that would have been a sick burn if it didn’t rely on misunderstanding non-literal language.
Are your donations to the Republican party still tax deductable after they’ve been filtered through a proxy?
Nope, just the best in class tools you need to do one, no matter how many red flags you wave around, all thanks to the pro-gun community.
But don’t worry, they make up for it by intervening in almost 3% of mass shooters. That’s almost as many as unarmed civilians!
Of course over 80% of those mass shooters are legal gun owners, with most of the remaining 20% being children of “responsible gun owners”.
Unless their state doesn’t have universal background checks – a system the pro-gun community opposes. Then they’ve just got to organise a private sale and complete the transaction without saying “By the way I’m a rapist”.
But it’s not like it’s a barrier anyway. Making guns trivial to purchase also makes it trivial to straw purchase guns too.
Yet we’re still haven’t covered all the ways the pro-gun community arms murderers and rapists because guess where stolen weapons come from?
That’s right, legal gun owners again! The ones with zero obligation to properly secure their firearms, who leave them sitting in gloveboxes and drawers in case they need to murder a minority real quick.
Oh how kind of you to decide what weapons people should be threatened with while they’re raped.
But aren’t you forgetting something? Those victims can just carry knives too and everything is fair and just again right? Or does your shit tier logic suddenly not apply when we’re not talking about your toys?
You tried so hard to dress it up as “Actually I’m a hero to people with disabilities too” but you just made it obvious that deep down, you know knive crimes have a lower lethality and a higher chance of being interrupted.
But it’s not you being raped and murdered, so who cares right? You’ve already made it clear you think you’re doing them a favor by selling their attackers guns.
You could have just not said anything rather than admitting that gun owners can’t be trusted to accurately self-report DGUs.
Oh honey, you’re not even comparing the right things. Did you really think it was going to be “DGUs is bigger than gun murders therefore I’m right”?
You’re comparing alternative realities – and you’re not even comparing them well. For a start, where’s your number for how many offensive gun uses there are?
For every limp dick waving a gun around claiming self defense, there could be 100 abusive partners telling their sweethearts “if you try to leave I’ll kill you”.
But don’t worry, we can compare this reality by seeing how America – where hundreds of thousands of brave patriots use their cool guns to fend off rapists and murderers – to the rest of the world.
And oh look, the crime rate is functionally identical, only you’re more likely to be killed during a property crime thanks to all the criminals the pro-gun crowd armed.
Oh but those people are probably british right? They don’t count. We need to stick to AMERICAN numbers because nobody knows gunning down innocent people like AMERICA does (for some mysterious reason).
But when gun sales go up, crime rates go down right? If guns prevent more crime than they enable, that should be clearly reflected. “Guns sold” number goes up, “number of crimes” goes down.
Nope. No measurable difference at all with some mass shootings sprinkled on top. Just another pro-gun lie in a string of thousands.
You know people that aren’t fucked-in-the-head gun cultists don’t consider “I had to threaten or kill another person with a gun” to be “working out great” right?
You genuinely probably don’t. I’ve seen the “get out of murder free” fantasies all over pro-gun forums. What’s yours? I’m guessing “saving a woman that’s out of your league from a Trump voter”.
Go mom! 85, still getting hers and making bank from it too!
Did you find her when you were looking for people willing to fuck you for money? Did you start at the great grandmothers or did everyone else turn you down?
Just don’t do a mass shooting okay? Sexually frustrated gun owners murdering women has become such a cliche.
Removed by mod
“allows you to run your mouth like a rabid retarded monkey trying to hump a door knob into submission.”
Attacking other users with (admittedly) highly creative ableist slurs is not allowed. Keep it civil.
Oh damn you have to show basic competence with a deadly weapon before you’re allowed to take it home and cuddle it? What an authoritarian hellscape.
It’s definitely odd seeing the crowd cheering for regulatory capture, that’s certain. Doubly infuriating because this kind of legislation will not solve problems, it’s virtue signaling to anti-gun donors and voters, that just pisses off everyone who has to live with it. How does insurance solve harm? It doesn’t, and I’d argue this is legally untested enough that a carrier can likely find ways to get out from paying.
There’s much better areas to start unraveling this issue, but they’re hard and don’t make quick headlines for clout:
There it is lmao. Like gangs are the problem.
This isn’t the “racist found, we can dismiss everything said fellas” dog whistle you think it is.
Targeted programs that focus on individuals do exist, and are working. A small number of individuals commit an outsize percentage of the gun violence, so focusing on those people with non-policing efforts can have a large effect.
“It’s the black peoples fault”.
Half the American women murdered in their last decade were killed by their partner, but there’s no “funding and diversion efforts” for white guys who can’t control their emotions.
If “performative theatre” upsets you, then the pro-gun side is not for you.
They crow about “keeping their family safe” but droves of children are blowing their brains out with their dads guns or dying screaming on their classroom floor.
They promise all the gun violence will be worth it because they’ll keep us safe from tyranny but they enthusiastically vote for authoritarian, far-right candidates running on a platform of “we will take away the rights of women and minorities”.
They promise they’re “responsible gun owners”, then staunchly oppose any measure that makes that responsibility a requirement, not a completely voluntary pinkie promise.
You almost make it sound like this is a bad thing?