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
[–] 24 points 2 years ago (24 children)

Disarm the poors! Only our oppressors should have the option of lethal self-defense!

  • source
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Ah yes. America. The only country in the world where it’s expected that everyone has a gun and can carry it every where they go.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (45 children)

    Idk I need to get insurance for my car because it might hurt someone. I think this makes sense and is a good step. You have a right to own guns but no one said it would be cheap.

    If you are poor buying a gun should not be your priority anyways. why do poor people need guns? It's not like they are going out hunting for their food still.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 47 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It's obvious you've never lived in the hood lol. Poor income areas usually have the highest crime and often little to no police presence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    I've lived in the hood. BRANDISHING which is what this law for, would have you shot dead. Get the fuck outta here.

    Does it say I need insurance to own a shotgun, that is kept in my home? Because thats what I'd be using if I lived in the hood and felt afraid in my home

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Many people who conceal carry and actually train with their firearms can draw and fire in about 1.5 seconds. That is fast enough that you won't be shot dead in a lot of situations.

    Brandishing is dumb. If someone is going to draw their firearm, it should only ever be in a life or death situation, and they should be justified in using it immediately.

    Open carry is also just a bad idea everywhere, not just the hood.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    1.5 seconds or not, now everyone knows you own a gun. A gun will never improve a situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    You are right that guns rarely improve a situation, but sometimes we have to deal with the fact that we live in a cruel world where a lot of people carry guns and are desperate enough to use them on people.

    Personally, if I was being robbed and was conceal carrying, I would do everything I could to not escalate the situation. I would just slowly give them my stuff. But if I am trapped in a building with a mass shooter or something, I would rather try to defend my family and myself rather than just waiting to be executed.

    I respect your viewpoint on it, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I don't believe, and also hope for your own sake, that a situation never arises where you need one. You have every right to be able to do so. In fact, this bill only makes it so in the event something goes wrong; insurance has got you covered.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • I sincerely appreciate the well wishes. I hope a situation never arises where I need one, either, and I kind of wish the world and our country wasn't the way it is, but here we are. I also think this bill is not a terrible idea at all, maybe just needs to be ironed out a bit to consider low income people somehow.

    I hope you have a great day, and wish you the best in life.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Brandishing and carrying are not the same thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Open carrying in the hood is a great way to get shot. Being open about your weapons in the hood is a great way to get robbed.

    Semantics.

    If it came to you having to use your weapon in the first place, then you're already dead. This bill is a good first step in curbing our rampant gun issues.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    Lol reread the article, this is for carrying, brandishing is what is known as a "criminal offense" and is "not covered by such liability insurance." You want "insurance" against your literal crimes get a lawyer on retainer, but I know you're just conflating carrying concealed, laugably, or open, with brandishing, which by all definitions involved particularly the legal (i.e important) ones, they are not the same thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Idk I need to get insurance for my car because it might hurt someone. I think this makes sense and is a good step. You have a right to own guns but no one said it would be cheap.

    This brings up a whole other tangent that I'll ignore for now (the necessity of needing a car and it not being a right, and having to pay for it) -- but a dangerous item/toy etc and a gun, i.e. a fundamantal means of self defense, should be treated differently by law in a country that claims to be free.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (43 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Nobody should be carrying as a routine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (20 replies)