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.

    • naught@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      But it’s pay to drive, right? I suppose driving isn’t mentioned in the bill of rights, but I’d argue neither is the individual right to wield a firearm.

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        You pay for car accidents and they don’t pay out for intentional stuff. You don’t really hear much about accidental shootings from people while they’re out carrying. The act of carrying isn’t dangerous.

        • naught@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          The act of carrying is inherently more dangerous than not. That is an indisputable fact that you don’t even need statistics to know. I am infinitely more likely to die by a firearm if it exists in the first place rather than not.

          People living with handgun owners died by homicide at twice the rate of their neighbors in gun-free homes. That difference was driven largely by homicides at home, which were three times more common among people living with handgun owners.

          https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/

          • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I claim you’re ignorant and your link is not anything to do with being out conceal carrying. Your argument also is of “guns not existing” rather than one of “people wanting to legally carry needing to pay.”

            They are not the same thing.

            • naught@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              I provided a link to evidence illustrating my point that the presence of a gun presents a greater risk of dying to a firearm. The study is about a different situation, but both deal with the presence of firearms. I would welcome evidence to the contrary rather than insults because I am engaging you here in good faith.

              I say adding a gun to any situation increases the chances of a gun being used simply because it is present. More guns in more places = more opportunities for them to be used. I think that is simple logic, and again I welcome you to refute it.

              This is something that requires people who carry weapons in public to be capable of providing restitution to anyone harmed by their actions. I can’t see a massive harm in it other than disproportionately affecting the poor.

              • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Obviously, if no guns exist, no guns can be used. That isn’t even worth you bringing up. But since they do exist and are present, this is just a silly money grab and/or a way to restrict and even further incarcerate the poor half of the country. Making someone pay money to be allowed to carry around anything is just asinine. What next? Shall we charge you a fee for your propane bottle because you can make it explode? Your pencil because you can stab someone with it? Charge extra if you live above the 2nd story because you could push someone to their death?

                There are literally millions of people who conceal carry every day. The ones who would pay insurance or simply stop carrying aren’t the ones hurting people. The “insurance” would just be for them. It wouldn’t be for the people you want to worry about.

                • naught@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  I’m not saying if there were no guns, but fewer, and more tightly regulated. I think this particular law is not a solution by any means to be clear, but at least it’s something. You make the same points here that I see against gun control and regulation more broadly, so I’m speaking to that as well.

                  I mean the difference between a gun and that stuff that a gun is designed to kill things – humans. It’s not exactly comparable to a pencil or even propane which is comparatively very safe. The US has an extremely high per capita rate of firearm violence, even ignoring suicides which are a huge problem. We don’t have a propane problem

                  I am hopeful laws that have a bigger, more positive effect can be passed

                  • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    I’m saying that creating a law or regulation that doesn’t in any way reduce the amount of guns in a violent or potentially violent person’s hands doesn’t do anything at all.

                    How many people who aren’t already felons and not allowed to have so much as a knife on them anyhow and are going to pay an insurance fee to carry, and be someone to worry about needlessly shooting someone while away from their home while they’re carrying do you think there are? Almost all the shootings that aren’t self defense and are outside of homes is done by people who already weren’t even allowed to carry to begin with. All the big mass shootings never seem like they’re done on a whim, so those people obviously wouldn’t be deterred by an insurance requirement at all.

      • dezmd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah but if we can’t drive around shooting our guns as a protected freedom of expression, are we really free?

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      You are walking around with a deadly weapon. We test, register, and insure people who drive around with a deadly weapon.

      Nothing about the 2A says you do not assume liability for exercising your right. ain fact, all of US case on this would say the opposite. You absolutely assume liability for both what you do with your weapons, and what you fail to do with your weapons.

    • MagicShel@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      There is a definable risk to life and property associated with carrying. And the cost of that risk should be born by those perpetuating it. I hear carrying supposedly makes things safer, so presuming the actuarial tables agree that cost should be totally nominal in which case why not?