this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
1090 points (97.8% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2447 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months 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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] vala 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Brandishing and carrying are not the same thing.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

This law would also affect concealed carry no?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I never said anything about brandishing. I was responding to the above comment saying poor people don't need to buy a gun.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

No one needs a gun, but another barrier to entry is a plus in my book.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

My comment was directed at the person claiming having a gun in the hood is a necessity and that this bill stops them from that.

I said brandishing because if you have a gun in the hood, whether or not its tucked in your shorts, holstered and concealed as is legal, or hanging from your balls out in the open, its a bad fucking idea.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

My comment was directed at the person claiming having a gun in the hood is a necessity and that this bill stops them from that.

Right, but you were the only person in the entire thread to mention brandishing, the comment you replied to is in relation to carrying, open or concealed, as is the article, and the law itself that we're discussing, keep up buddy. Also:

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

Your comment was directed at him, but about this law, which is what I'm correcting you on.

The hood being underpoliced and over-crimed necessitates the occasional defense of oneself, and the carrying required to do so. You can feel whatever way you want to about that, but sometimes it does have to happen, and does happen, regularly.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

He definitely edited his comment though that is besides the point. I most certainly used the term brandishing to illicit this exact response, and I'd say its right. It does not matter whether or not its open carried, concealed, or brandished. Id wager you lots of money that "any time its necessitated to resort to gun violence in the hood" that the person (who "won") eventually lived a short life.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Yeah yeah "he edited it" whatever, I pulled that quote from YOUR comment.

You think brandishing and concealed carry being "the same" is "right?"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?height=800&def_id=18-USC-25375849-946262285&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:44:section:924

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concealed%20carry

Feel free to stop being obtuse anytime, you're fooling nobody but yourself.