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.

  • Neato
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Make sense. There’s more deaths by firearm than automobile in the US every year. It’s actually fairly close at around 40-50k yearly. Which is absolutely insane…

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

    All firearm deaths

    Number of deaths: 48,830

    Motor vehicle traffic deaths

    Number of deaths: 45,404

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      Iirc gun statistics don’t differentiate between homicides and suicides and I believe suicides is about half of that statistic.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        6
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        61%, according to actuaries. It’s the same reason that this law isn’t all that great in making insurance companies the new gatekeeper for ownership: permit holders are among the lowest risk for firearm incidents. People who have guns and who won’t be paying for this insurance are the real actuarial, financial risk. The suicidal and the homicidal will be nearly excluded from the policy risks because they won’t be buying the policy. The title saying “gun owners” is incorrect, because this only applies to people who “wear or carry.” Thus, the insurance cost will be low.

        From driving_crooner’s link: https://www.theactuarymagazine.org/firearm-risk/

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 year ago

      Nope, very wrong. Firearm related deaths are not even in the top 10 causes of death in the USA. Car accidents are far more common causes of death.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    661 year ago

    I’m not very opinionated on guns tbh, but I do think this only makes it more difficult for poor people. I’m not sure I agree with that.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    71 year ago

    I appreciate the concept, but is $300,000 enough to actually cover the cost of damages? Guns generally seem like the sort of thing where accidents either cause minimal or catastrophic damage with not much in between.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.

      Once the law is on the books, it can be used.

      Once there’s an underinsured tragedy, there will be sufficient will to amend the coverage minimum.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    221 year ago

    Aside from this being a regressive tax, how many unjustifiable shootings result from people legally permitted to carry a firearm?

  • @[email protected]
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    741 year ago

    These proposals would ultimately manifest in insurance for white peopel costing less and black people and hispanics costing more. All this does is price minorities out of gun rights. The whites will be fine, good thing they’re not the ones comitting the vast majority of gun terrorism . . . Oh wait I’ve just received some devastating statistics . . .

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      Don’t be a sucker. If dogshit gun laws made minorities safer, America would be the safest country in the world by a massive margin.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      91 year ago

      Insurance underwriters would surely base their insurance premiums off that very information. I think this may be a rare case of insurance actually being somewhat fair considering race.

      Then again, Baltimore.

      • @[email protected]
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        18
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are sucide, organized crime also has a high share. The insurance premiums are not going to be based on whos more likely to do a mass shooting they’re gonna be based on every payout they prospectivly have to make. So people who will get the highest rates will be minorities and those seeking mental health treatment. So the best way to keep your premium low would be to be white and not seek mental health treatment. That’s not exactly behavior I would like financially incentivised.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          I don’t know, based off the information you’re working with, we’re assuming that the gun insurers would be on the hook for life insurance claims?

          That’s different than liability, which is what’s proposed here

      • @[email protected]
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        11
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sure, here you go, exactly the kinds and sources and data insurers are going to look at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7226a9.htm

        Seems to imply the biggest risks for insuring are Black men. White men come in even lower than Black women. I’m sure actuaries will pull more than just this graph but it’s pretty indicative of how it will shake out. Unless of course you have some sources you’d like to cite that imply otherwise.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          The whites will be fine, good thing they’re not the ones comitting the vast majority of gun terrorism . . . Oh wait I’ve just received some devastating statistics . . .

          I guess i misunderstood this line… the first part sure. i guess. there are poor white people too. but ok. the second part sounds like you’re being sarcastic about the first part… which is contradicted by the numbers you posted… so… i guess im still confused as to your stance.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    71 year ago

    So, this only applies to firearms, right? Can I circumvent this by owning a bow, crossbow, sword or one of the cool experimental coil//plasma/laser guns instead? /S

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    12
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I believe in this wholeheartedly

    but it’lll never pass, and even if it does, it’ll never withstand a trial challenge… because of the bolded part below.

    A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

    edit And just so lemmy doesnt crawl up my ass about it, I am not an ammosexual, I’m quoting the 2nd amendment for its relevance here on how this bill wont stand, not because I’m a red hat wearing cultist.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      In that case, all gun owners should be required to have regular training with their state militia.

      But we’ve already lost to the ammosexuals.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Theres been attempts at that too, struck down for the same reason that this bill will be.

        because god forbid we teach joebob how to keep his booger hook off the boombutton.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you’re not an ammosexual, why do you appeal to the constitution? This amendment clearly refers to a militia. Are you using the conservative court’s opinion for some reason? Would you support this amendment being amended?

      Edit: Genuinely asking, just curious

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    91 year ago

    That’s hilariously low.

    I’ve got £2,000,000 liability on my pet insurance. And she’s got about 4 teeth left.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    521 year ago

    Ahhh, the old “let’s make something a right that only the rich can afford.” For all the “eat the rich” rhetoric here, there seems to be a lot of desire to increase the class divide even more by limiting rights to how much money you have.

    It’s already very difficult to nearly impossible to obtain a purchase and carry permit in the state since Maryland is “May issue” state and NOT a “Shall issue” state. This means you can be denied a permit at the whim of local law enforcement unless you have an “in” with whoever is in charge. This is purely performative theater to buy votes.

    And the two groups that really should have liability insurance - drug gangs and law enforcement - will be completely unaffected by this requirement.

    • Zuberi 👀
      link
      fedilink
      211 year ago

      Just don’t bring your gun to your favorite walmart?..

      You don’t have to bring the fucking thing around with you everywhere

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        You were never a boy scout were you? Ever heard of being prepared? Maybe the phrase “I’d rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it”? Bet the people in the Walmart shooting in Texas a few years ago wish they would have taken their gun into the Walmart.

        • Zuberi 👀
          link
          fedilink
          41 year ago

          “Being prepared” is running away. 100% of the time.

          Those “good guys w/ a guy” stories are legit almost always an off-duty cop who knows how to handle the situation (and the gun)

          You dweeb come-and-take-its don’t need it at a Walmart

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      It’s already very difficult to nearly impossible to obtain a purchase and carry permit in the state since Maryland is “May issue” state and NOT a “Shall issue” state.

      You almost make it sound like this is a bad thing?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      81 year ago

      MD is Shall Issue now, thanks to Bruen. Still very hard to obtain a permit, as you require 16 hours of instruction, passing a live-fire exam, and paying about $200 in fees (on top of the $400 class).

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        Oh damn you have to show basic competence with a deadly weapon before you’re allowed to take it home and cuddle it? What an authoritarian hellscape.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          81 year ago

          Well when all the classes are only offered during the week (or charge more for weekend classes), taking two days off work and spending a whole paycheck just on a permit is rather difficult.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          91 year ago

          Sir, that is unlicensed speech. You’ll need to take 16 hours of a $400 class and pay a $200 fee for a license to speak that way.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            61 year ago

            It should be a required safety test like with driver’s licenses, a reasonable compromise that you can also add immediate failure states to and doesn’t add an undue time and cost burden to people who aren’t dumbasses, unlike a class.

            Get a child safety question wrong?

            Fail.

            Say you have the right to shoot a fleeing burglar in the back?

            Also fail.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              51 year ago

              you don’t have the right to shoot a burglar in the front. loss of property isn’t an excusable reason to shoot someone. fear of bodily harm or death for you or someone else is.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                2
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Jeez, it sure would be awkward for your argument if a home invasion carried an inherent threat, which is why most robberies occur when no one is home to be threatened.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  41 year ago

                  jeez it sure would be awkward if your argument made any sense. let me put it in caps for you. INHERENT THREAT.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                2
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                loss of property isn’t an excusable reason to shoot someone.

                Varies greatly depending on what state you live in. Texas, being the worst state for almost everything, doesn’t even require it to be your property. You can, in fact, defend your neighbors property with deadly force. You can also shoot them in the back if it’s nighttime.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            51 year ago

            But after that you can use that speech to kill a room full of children or a fleeing partner right?

            I’m just going to come out and say it: Fuck your gun “rights”. I absolutely support it being taken away from you. It’s just as immoral as the right to own slaves was.

            You’re hiding behind the word “right” because you know the only way to defend permissive gun laws is pretending that domestic abusers having poorly secured AR-15s is up there with “bodily autonomy” or “freedom of beliefs”.

            Would you be playing your little “only bad guys take away rights” games if people had the “right” to help themselves to your daughters body? To kill you on a whim because of your skin color?

            After all, anything you call a “right” is inherently good and ethical and to be preserved at all costs.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              31 year ago

              But after that you can use that speech to kill a room full of children or a fleeing partner right?

              Oh shit they made school shootings legal if you have a permit? Missed that update.

              right" to help themselves to your daughters body? To kill you on a whim because of your skin color?

              Your rights end where another’s begin, you are not entitled to another’s body or life, you are however entitled to the tools with which to defend yourself if someone does try to violate your rights to your body or life. In your scenario, or should I say “currently,” I actually have the right to shoot the rapist or racist murderer.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                31 year ago

                Oh shit they made school shootings legal if you have a permit? Missed that update

                They may as well given the disgustingly low bar you set for gun owners.

                The laws the pro-gun community holds up as ideal couldn’t prevent the sale of a gun to a teenager with the nickname “school shooter” and a history of animal abuse, death and rape threats, days before he did a school shooting.

                If you’re going to staunchly oppose gun control, why not just come out and say that you support selling semi-automatic weapons to far-right extremists, deeply disturbed men in the throes of psychosis, people who hit their partners and people who can’t secure their firearms from children?

                Your rights end where another’s begin, you are not entitled to another’s body or life

                I think you mean that other people’s rights end where yours begin.

                After all, you have no problem bankrolling the gun-lobby who in turn fund the Republicans that openly campaign on a platform of taking away the rights of women and minorities.

                Does a child have a right to safety and education? Only at the discretion of whatever insane fuckstick you’ve armed today because your guns are more important that someone else’s children.

                I actually have the right to shoot the rapist or racist murderer.

                And those rapists and murderers have the right to own guns because you insisted on it. Should we look at their statistics to see how that works out for everyone?

                Oh what a shocking plot twist, it works out great for your as you sit there delivering on fuck all of your promises and it works out great for the rapists and racists.

                Your right come at the expense of others and you’re not even good at hiding it.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  4
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  They may as well given the disgustingly low bar you set for gun owners.

                  The laws the pro-gun community holds up as ideal couldn’t prevent the sale of a gun to a teenager with the nickname “school shooter” and a history of animal abuse, death and rape threats, days before he did a school shooting.

                  Translation: “I don’t know a damn thing about how to buy a gun in the US and I’m probably british.

                  I think you mean that other people’s rights end where yours begin.

                  If you’re having difficulty parsing the statement it means that you don’t have the right to deprive another of their rights. I know it can be confusing for people like you who don’t like rights, so I understand.

                  After all, you have no problem bankrolling the gun-lobby

                  Well find me a gun company that …isn’t a gun company? I guess? What are your standards here lmao? Gotta buy them from the people who sell em, you ever buy weed in the US pre-'10? If yes, you feel bad about supporting the Sinaloa Cartel Lobby? Know what? I blame you, they wouldn’t have to lobby if people weren’t always trying to ban them.

                  Does a child have a right to safety and education?

                  Yes.

                  Only at the discretion of whatever insane fuckstick you’ve armed today because your guns are more important that someone else’s children.

                  Oh shit they made school shootings legal if you have a permit? Missed that update

                  And those rapists and murderers have the right to own guns because you insisted on it.

                  Well, not if they are a prohibited purchaser. And I’d rather their victims be able to have them too than just get raped and murdered at knifepoint instead. “You can run from knife,” ahh shaddup you better be fast then with that ableist take, and don’t try to pretend you weren’t about to type that shit either y’all are too predictable.

                  Should we look at their statistics to see how that works out for everyone?

                  Yes. According to John Lott, Gary Kleck, and the CDC, the estimate for defensive gun use in the 90s was somewhere between 500,000 and 3,000,000 times per year. The study in question was survey based, and included “defensive display,” which is a defense in which simply making the attacker aware of the presence of a firearm is enough to scare them off. Due to this, and the wide gap between the high/low end, the veracity of this study has been debated. However, according to a recent Harvard study done to discredit that “myth of the good guy with a gun,” they say a “more realistic estimate” of defensive gun use which does NOT include defensive display and is based solely off verifiable police reports is 100,000 per year.

                  Well, that takes care of the DGU, what about the deaths? Surely more than 100k/yr! Let’s see here, our murder rate yearly according to the FBI is about 15,000/yr.… Hol’ up, 15,000 homicides/yr? Shit, that is MUCH less than 100,000 dgu/yr. Well alright alright I know what’ll get those self defenders! The total gun death rate including homicides, suicides, and accidents! Surely there’s 1,000,000/yr! In 2021, there were a total of 48,830 firearm deaths. Hmm well shit. Turns out that doesn’t do it either, since 48,830<100,000. Damn, I guess guns are used in defense more than deaths. Who’da thunk it?

                  Oh what a shocking plot twist, it works out great for your as you sit there delivering on fuck all of your promises and it works out great for the rapists and racists.

                  I’ll twist your twister with the 100,000 people it DID work out great for every year, that’s 51,170 more twists! Get twisted on, go twist yourself.

                  Your right come at the expense of others

                  Your Mama comes at the expense of others, and it isn’t even that expensive.

              • @[email protected]M
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                “allows you to run your mouth like a rabid retarded monkey trying to hump a door knob into submission.”

                Attacking other users with (admittedly) highly creative ableist slurs is not allowed. Keep it civil.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      111 year ago

      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
      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

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

        There it is lmao. Like gangs are the problem.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          31 year 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          51 year 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      If “performative theatre” upsets you, then the pro-gun side is not for you.

      They crow about “keeping their family safe” but droves of children are blowing their brains out with their dads guns or dying screaming on their classroom floor.

      They promise all the gun violence will be worth it because they’ll keep us safe from tyranny but they enthusiastically vote for authoritarian, far-right candidates running on a platform of “we will take away the rights of women and minorities”.

      They promise they’re “responsible gun owners”, then staunchly oppose any measure that makes that responsibility a requirement, not a completely voluntary pinkie promise.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    391 year ago

    I see what they want to do: no sane insurance company will provide such contracts unless they either:

    1. make the customers pay exorbitant prices
    2. require background checks and do the control themselves

    Any of those will of course disincentivize people from owning guns, which is a good thing, but it’s crazy that a state has to offload these controls to a private company because there is no political willingness to do it in the right way.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      what is the right way? carrying was almost impossible in MD before the Supreme Court ruling.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        It’s okay, Billy McFucksHisSister was kinda outgunned by “the gubmint’s” F-35s already I don’t think his walmart glock was anything the rich ever feared.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          81 year ago

          I’d to ask what should then we do in case of a dictatorship, for example? Just lay down and fear the F-35s?

          Yes, even if everyone has a wallmat glock we’d outgunned by a mile by let’s say the military, but also you can’t just bomb and kill the shit out of your labor and infrastructure — I mean, you can, also you can bomb and kill enough to get them to submit, but that is just not something you can just keep doing indefinetly. It is also very hard to maintain a economy going with a big insurrection going and there is were guns bring a point, they give you at least a figthing chance, way better than nothing.

          I’d also like to point out the ad hominem of calling the hypotetical gun owner a “McFucksHisSister” it brings nothing of value to the conversation.

          I also do not belive carrying a gun around is something needed -by almost anyone- but ownership is important.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            Also important to note is that the military is not some faceless automaton that does whatever they’re told. It’s very hard to justify killing the family and townspeople and neighbours of the people that you send to commit the killing. If we get to a state where it isn’t hard, we’re already lost as a people.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              31 year ago

              Don’t know about the US, but in most places the military wouldn’t send you tonserve or even less fight to, say, Shithole, Alabama if you are from there. Of course you wouldn’t shoot your uncle or brother. They figured this out centuries ago, before firearms.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              21 year ago

              I’d like to agree with you, but given the experiences and horrors carried out by the military in my country (not the USA) I just can’t. I guess I agree with your last sentence, and I really hope you guys (whoever is reading) do better than us.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          41 year ago

          Is that a fixed range, or will the cost just go up for the folk that some corporation thinks shouldn’t carry a gun?

          The government should just do it’s fucking job and provide the insurance and background check. Its a bad move to relegate this to private parties. Atleast with the government the people can vote who is in power.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            So you guys don’t have universal healthcare but it makes sense for the taxpayers to subsidise insurance and background checks so everyone can carry a gun and be happy, and sobthe the poor are not left out from this inalienable right that is carrying a gun in public like in the western movies?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      They are using the anti-abortion strategy of finding a fairly strong argument and trying to maximize the ability of blocking something based on it. This will likely also fail like most of those attempts did.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      121 year ago

      Well, undoubtedly if it is like other types of insurance the insurance will exempt homicide and and suicide. It will probably only cover accidental discharge so it will not help with the two biggest problems.

      • Neato
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        That makes sense, I guess. If there’s a homicide you’re probably already suing the perpetrator.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          It makes sense, but it’s not going to address what are the biggest problems. He’ll if anything it might get worse as people will know insurance will cover their accidental discharges…

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        71 year ago

        Most insurance doesn’t cover an insured for deliberate acts by the insured. Off the top of my head the only caveat I can think of is in Japan where life insurance can still pay out in the event of suicide.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          71 year ago

          Life insurance in the US will also generally pay out in the case of suicide, as long as you wait at least one year after the purchase of a policy to kill yourself.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            Huh, news to me. But it has been a decade plus since licensing when I went over life insurance so it’s entirely possible I forgot or policies changed since then. Thanks for letting me know.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            The industry standard is two years. In Brazil, where I work in, is an obligation imposed by our regulator.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    441 year ago

    If you think that’s bad, I had to get a $1,000,000 umbrella coverage policy for our swimming pool to cover liability in case someone gets injured. I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all