1087
Maryland bill would force gun owners to get $300K liability insurance to wear or carry
(foxbaltimore.com)
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sounds like a step in the right direction. Force people to get insurance to keep a deadly weapon, and at the same time prevent insurance companies from offering that service. A convoluted way to ban private citizens owning guns in a civilised country sounds good regardless?
It's the reason we can't make progress at all on guns.
There are people in the anti-gun crowd who have demonstrated time and again that they aren't acting in good faith when they offer "reasonable" solutions, so the pro-gun crowd now refuses to compromise on anything.
You know why it took so long to get background checks for firearm purchases? It's because gun-owners were afraid of a firearm registry that would eventually be used to confiscate their guns. And that was absolutely a goal of the anti-gun crowd.
You know what got us the background checks? Having a compromise that banned the government from keeping a registry of gun owners, but having dealers keep private records of sales so that any specific firearm could be traced from its manufacturer to the first buyer. It was an elegant solution that drastically improved matters, even if it didn't solve everything.
And that's what compromise allows us to do - move forward little by little.
I would love to have a firearm with smart safety features like a fingerprint scanner, but the anti-gun crowd prevents them from being developed because they pushed for laws that would outlaw all guns that don't have the features once they become available on any gun. The result was every gun manufacturer instantly stopped developing the tech to keep their entire portfolios from being banned.
In California, newer pistols, often with improved safety and reliability, are illegal to sell because any new pistol there is required to have a serial number stamp on the firing pin to mark the primer - a feature that doesn't exist. So you've got guns that are decades out of date being sold new there because they're all that's legal. Glock still manufacturers pistols that are old enough they're out of patent because they can be sold in California. Taurus pistols that have killed people because they fire when shaken are legal there, but the newer ones that fixed the safety features are not.
NICS isn't available to the general public for firearm sales because the anti-gun crowd won't settle for that improvement for the time being, and instead wants to go all-in on background checks and a transfer of ownership for lending a gun to a buddy going hunting. Instead of slow-rolling the path to (very necessary) universal background checks, progress is frozen. Straw purchases are easier because gun owners have learned throgh experience not to trust the "other side."
Nobody on either side is willing to compromise on anything anymore and it's depressing, because progress isn't being made. Gun control advocates' overzealousness is a textbook example of letting perfect get in the way of good. Instead of slow progress we're moving backwards.
I think the biofire gun might conform to the criteria that you're looking for, but it strikes me more as a "nightstand" gun than maybe something you might want to carry around, and I dunno what you really want your gun for.
I think the tech isn't quite there for a self defense gun because of that stupid New Jersey law that set us back decades.
I'd want it for hunting and target-shooting guns where the firearm failing to fire is an annoyance rather than something that will get you killed.
My self-defense pistol is on my body or unloaded in a locked safe in a hidden compartment on my vehicle with the mag and ammunition locked elsewhere.
But I can't hide my long guns or target pistols as well.
I mean if you just want something for hunting or plinking, I feel like any classic bolt action rifle would probably be fine, no? The reasoning being that it's a relatively low risk gun generally, if someone else decides to steal it, compared to like, a tricked out ar-15, and it's also much cheaper than that, as well. Depending on what you're wanting to hunt, you could have an air gun, or a much smaller caliber, as well, and improve the cost and relative safety. If you're looking for hiding and hunting guns, then something that you can take down might be a good call, and then you could store the two halves in different places.
I dunno, I'm assuming you're wanting to hide your guns from people who might steal them, rather than like, your kids, or friends, or some sort of accidental discharge situation, cause if that was the case, I would probably just recommend one of those trigger locks that everyone tends to poo-poo on, which would pretty easily prevent any accidental idiocy as far as other people are concerned, but not not prevent a committed criminal from breaking through it, and they might steal it pretty easily as well. I guess it doesn't matter what you end up getting as much, but if you're really concerned, you could put a bike lock through the magwell, and out of the chamber, and then through some harder piece of your car, so nobody can get it out unless they're bringing a hacksaw, or unless they're a great lockpick. I would recommend anything you might get with a tubular lock, those are pretty hard to open, kind of overkill.
I'm okay in my personal setup really. I've got plenty of firearms and they're kept in safes. But I think there's a plane for smart guns for those who don't have a thousand dollars to spend in safes.
And there isn't a gun lock made that can't be bypassed in seconds. They're famously insufficient for keeping out curious kids.