this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
1088 points (97.8% liked)

politics

19159 readers
5438 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thepreciousboar@lemm.ee 33 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I see what they want to do: no sane insurance company will provide such contracts unless they either:

  1. make the customers pay exorbitant prices
  2. require background checks and do the control themselves

Any of those will of course disincentivize people from owning guns, which is a good thing, but it's crazy that a state has to offload these controls to a private company because there is no political willingness to do it in the right way.

[–] Tangent5280@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago (2 children)

This solves nothing, except for the rich getting the sole prerogative to guns.

[–] naught@sh.itjust.works 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Personal liability insurance typically costs around $8 to $10 a year for every $100,000 in coverage https://www.policygenius.com/homeowners-insurance/what-is-personal-liability-insurance

Even if this source is off by a factor of 10, what person can purchase a $400+ firearm but can't afford the same in yearly insurance?

[–] Tangent5280@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Is that a fixed range, or will the cost just go up for the folk that some corporation thinks shouldn't carry a gun?

The government should just do it's fucking job and provide the insurance and background check. Its a bad move to relegate this to private parties. Atleast with the government the people can vote who is in power.

[–] SkippingRelax@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

So you guys don't have universal healthcare but it makes sense for the taxpayers to subsidise insurance and background checks so everyone can carry a gun and be happy, and sobthe the poor are not left out from this inalienable right that is carrying a gun in public like in the western movies?

[–] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It’s okay, Billy McFucksHisSister was kinda outgunned by “the gubmint’s” F-35s already I don’t think his walmart glock was anything the rich ever feared.

[–] HappyRedditRefugee@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I'd to ask what should then we do in case of a dictatorship, for example? Just lay down and fear the F-35s?

Yes, even if everyone has a wallmat glock we'd outgunned by a mile by let's say the military, but also you can't just bomb and kill the shit out of your labor and infrastructure — I mean, you can, also you can bomb and kill enough to get them to submit, but that is just not something you can just keep doing indefinetly. It is also very hard to maintain a economy going with a big insurrection going and there is were guns bring a point, they give you at least a figthing chance, way better than nothing.

I'd also like to point out the ad hominem of calling the hypotetical gun owner a "McFucksHisSister" it brings nothing of value to the conversation.

I also do not belive carrying a gun around is something needed -by almost anyone- but ownership is important.

[–] Tangent5280@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Also important to note is that the military is not some faceless automaton that does whatever they're told. It's very hard to justify killing the family and townspeople and neighbours of the people that you send to commit the killing. If we get to a state where it isn't hard, we're already lost as a people.

[–] HappyRedditRefugee@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

I'd like to agree with you, but given the experiences and horrors carried out by the military in my country (not the USA) I just can't. I guess I agree with your last sentence, and I really hope you guys (whoever is reading) do better than us.

[–] SkippingRelax@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Don't know about the US, but in most places the military wouldn't send you tonserve or even less fight to, say, Shithole, Alabama if you are from there. Of course you wouldn't shoot your uncle or brother. They figured this out centuries ago, before firearms.

[–] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] HappyRedditRefugee@lemm.ee -1 points 9 months ago

No arguments: you cope.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago

They are using the anti-abortion strategy of finding a fairly strong argument and trying to maximize the ability of blocking something based on it. This will likely also fail like most of those attempts did.

[–] Willy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

what is the right way? carrying was almost impossible in MD before the Supreme Court ruling.