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.

    • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s it more classist than no car if you can’t afford insurance, or no mortgage if you can’t afford home loan insurance (or whatever it’s called in the us) though? And where are our priorities between gun, car and roof over ones head? Are guns really THAT important to cry class injustice?

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah tbh I’m not a fan of those being mandatory either, though seeing as “driving cars on public roads” is a privilege that you need to be licensed for rather than a right, that one is understandable. Guns are an important priority though, you may be in a safe enough area but not all of us have that luxury or privilege.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Unfortunately there are over 600,000,000 guns in the country in 50% of civilians hands with no registry to know where they’re at and neither the legal owners nor illegal owners are willing to part with them, pandora’s box has been opened. This is among the chief reasons availability to those who haven’t proven themselves a danger is important, self defense.

              • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                Thats literally the dominant thought on how to ensure world peace in the age of nukes too, have enough nukes that it keeps anyone who also has nukes at bay. If you have a better solution for the afformentioned pandoras box situation package it for nuclear arms and take it to NATO, they’d love to hear it.

                • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  No I don’t, but they are quite different problems.

                  World’s nations don’t have an entity governing them that can make and enforce laws. Citizens of a country do, it’s called a government. Most western governments (all except for the us) have demonstrated that guns can be controlled and it’s quite successful in making schools and mall shootings a non issue. We do have the occasional criminal carryingna gun, and so do corrupt cops but no one would consider arming themselves to 'protect my family '. It works.

            • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              So about the same situation as Australia used to be in before they banned guns after the massacre of the 90’s.

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                I mean, no, not at all. Iirc they had a registry, but for sure they had much less than 600,000,000 guns. Aus had 6.52 licensed firearm owners per 100 citizens in '97, we have 120 firearms per 100 citizens and a carry license in some states, but no ownership licensing or registry to know who/where at all. Also, fun fact, A 2003 study (Reuter and Mouzos, 2003) estimated that approximately 20 percent of Australia’s firearms were retrieved during the buyback, let’s do some math shall we? If we do the same, and ours is just as effective as theirs, 20% of 600,000,000 is 120,000,000 leaving 480,000,000 guns. Yaaay. Of course since they had a registry and less gun owners (6.2 aus vs 120 US), and they viewed firearms differently than the US where the owners refuse to give up their freedoms, their buyback was easier and we can expect it to be less effective.