this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
1087 points (97.8% liked)

politics

18898 readers
3463 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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:

  • Expand the denied persons categories, including domestic violence, including cops
  • Actually enforce sentencing for gun charges instead of pleading out, so ‘repeat offender’ laws actually work as designed
  • Focus funding and diversion efforts at gang members who commit violence in communities, instead of broad, cosmetic centric bans
  • Stop fetishizing guns as ‘manly’ or ‘powerful’ instead of just the deadly tools they are. Society shares blame here, but gun marketing absolutely took that an RAN with it
[–] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Focus funding and diversion efforts at gang members who commit violence in communities...

There it is lmao. Like gangs are the problem.

[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

"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.