1090
Maryland bill would force gun owners to get $300K liability insurance to wear or carry
(foxbaltimore.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
1090 points (97.8% liked)
politics
19244 readers
2401 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That doesn't sound that hard.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
TIL
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.
jeez it sure would be awkward if your argument made any sense. let me put it in caps for you. INHERENT THREAT.
It's okay to not know what words mean, you'll figure out how to use a dictionary when you get out of middle school.
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.
Oh shit they made school shootings legal if you have a permit? Missed that update.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Translation: "I don't know a damn thing about how to buy a gun in the US and I'm probably british."
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.
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.
Yes.
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.
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?
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 Mama comes at the expense of others, and it isn't even that expensive.
Oh no! Does the poor little soldier of the resistance need to fill out a form? Do they have to wait a few days? Maybe the poor little snowflakes have to arrange a private sale to dodge a background check?
But sure, we can play this game. Name a state whose gun laws you fully support and we'll go through them together.
I'm sure that would have been a sick burn if it didn't rely on misunderstanding non-literal language.
Are your donations to the Republican party still tax deductable after they've been filtered through a proxy?
Nope, just the best in class tools you need to do one, no matter how many red flags you wave around, all thanks to the pro-gun community.
But don't worry, they make up for it by intervening in almost 3% of mass shooters. That's almost as many as unarmed civilians!
Of course over 80% of those mass shooters are legal gun owners, with most of the remaining 20% being children of "responsible gun owners".
Unless their state doesn't have universal background checks -- a system the pro-gun community opposes. Then they've just got to organise a private sale and complete the transaction without saying "By the way I'm a rapist".
But it's not like it's a barrier anyway. Making guns trivial to purchase also makes it trivial to straw purchase guns too.
Yet we're still haven't covered all the ways the pro-gun community arms murderers and rapists because guess where stolen weapons come from?
That's right, legal gun owners again! The ones with zero obligation to properly secure their firearms, who leave them sitting in gloveboxes and drawers in case they need to murder a minority real quick.
Oh how kind of you to decide what weapons people should be threatened with while they're raped.
But aren't you forgetting something? Those victims can just carry knives too and everything is fair and just again right? Or does your shit tier logic suddenly not apply when we're not talking about your toys?
You tried so hard to dress it up as "Actually I'm a hero to people with disabilities too" but you just made it obvious that deep down, you know knive crimes have a lower lethality and a higher chance of being interrupted.
But it's not you being raped and murdered, so who cares right? You've already made it clear you think you're doing them a favor by selling their attackers guns.
You could have just not said anything rather than admitting that gun owners can't be trusted to accurately self-report DGUs.
Oh honey, you're not even comparing the right things. Did you really think it was going to be "DGUs is bigger than gun murders therefore I'm right"?
You're comparing alternative realities -- and you're not even comparing them well. For a start, where's your number for how many offensive gun uses there are?
For every limp dick waving a gun around claiming self defense, there could be 100 abusive partners telling their sweethearts "if you try to leave I'll kill you".
But don't worry, we can compare this reality by seeing how America -- where hundreds of thousands of brave patriots use their cool guns to fend off rapists and murderers -- to the rest of the world.
And oh look, the crime rate is functionally identical, only you're more likely to be killed during a property crime thanks to all the criminals the pro-gun crowd armed.
Oh but those people are probably british right? They don't count. We need to stick to AMERICAN numbers because nobody knows gunning down innocent people like AMERICA does (for some mysterious reason).
But when gun sales go up, crime rates go down right? If guns prevent more crime than they enable, that should be clearly reflected. "Guns sold" number goes up, "number of crimes" goes down.
Nope. No measurable difference at all with some mass shootings sprinkled on top. Just another pro-gun lie in a string of thousands.
You know people that aren't fucked-in-the-head gun cultists don't consider "I had to threaten or kill another person with a gun" to be "working out great" right?
You genuinely probably don't. I've seen the "get out of murder free" fantasies all over pro-gun forums. What's yours? I'm guessing "saving a woman that's out of your league from a Trump voter".
Go mom! 85, still getting hers and making bank from it too!
Did you find her when you were looking for people willing to fuck you for money? Did you start at the great grandmothers or did everyone else turn you down?
Just don't do a mass shooting okay? Sexually frustrated gun owners murdering women has become such a cliche.
you know, I gotta say, this is the worst formatted comment that I've come across on this whole website, I think, and I say that as someone with a great history of writing meandering and poorly formatted comments. going line by line through someone else's argument is extremely tedious and so is spacing out almost every single line of your argument. the thickest it ever gets is two lines at a time. christ.
If I was going to complain about readability, I probably wouldn't have opted for all lowercase.
they have a point. your style is tedious.
Sorry I offended your delicate eyeballs. Next time I'll make sure to prioritize how my comment looks across a range of devices and frontends, rather than the clarity of the argument itself.
Should I also stop using capital letters? It seems to be what all the formatting police are doing but I'm worried it will make me look like a sock puppet account that I'm using to agree with myself.
personally, I prefer single-topic replies, even if that necessitates many individual replies to one comment. think about how much of your comment I just skipped for to the responses and length.
Yes, atf form 4473 which coincides with an FBI background check to verify the info. See, you said:
Well, turns out, that if you're under 18 or have a history of felony animal abuse, you can't pass that! "Threats of death and rape" seems to be more of a "I don't feel like dealing with this" scenario from the cops, fix that, not being able to protect yourself.
Oh I understood I'm just making fun of you for your not at all thought out takes.
"The democrats don't support gun rights at all so to buy them you typically buy them from right wingers" then start some left wing gun companies and advertise, I'd love to buy a gun from an employee owned business, problem is one would have to "exist." You should start one.
Ah so by your logic since I can rent a uhaul and fill it up with fertilizer car bombs are legal, huh? Not even a NICs check!
Wrong again cheesedick, private sale to a prohibited purchaser is also illegal.
That's right, legal gun owners again! The ones with zero obligation to properly secure their firearms, who leave them sitting in gloveboxes and drawers in case they need to murder a minority real quick.
Oh word we're back to victim blaming?
I agree.
Sure, assuming they're stronger, faster, and/or better trained in knife fighting than the assailant, and the assailant doesn't have a gun (legal OR illegal).
Well, frankly either way, they can try to knife fight the guy now stronger or not, it just may not play out well for them. Actually this (people carrying knives for defense) happens a lot, I'd wager much more than the ~25% of civilians that are CCW holders.
See, here's one.
Toys like butterfly knives and all that silly shit? Get you a real tool, a glock. But anyway yes sorry to say that while the option is available, the physical properties of a distance tool like a firearm and a short range melee weapon are indeed different, and it will affect the outcome. You seem to have a hard time grasping "physical reality," are you ok?
Not by anyone with a physical disability, better hope their able bodied handler is around to James Bond the knife away from the attacker.
Hey that's my line, you're the one trying to disarm women.
Cute! You don't know that methodology is always questioned, and you think having people doubt it automatically means it isn't true! Guess with all the flat earthers the world isn't actually round, and since people doubted the covid vaccines you must also be an antivaxxer.
Couldn't find it but you must have it, yes?
Hol' up, you're the one who said other countries have no crime, thanks for refuting yourself.
Hmm interesting, almost like the proliferation of arms has less to do with crime than you purport.
Well seeing as how firearms can only legally be used to prevent death or grievous bodily injury, the other option is "death or grievous bodily injury." Out of the two I pick "shoot the other guy," myself, but you're free to accept death as you wish.
Hopefully never having to use it, but if I do, my "fantasy" is making it home at the end of the day in tact and alive, if a little shook up from my experience. Seeing as firearms are only to be used to prevent death or grievous bodily injury, the other option is "that."
Eehhh idk about bank...
Nah she offered, seemed like she really wanted that nickel and I felt bad for her. Was just gonna give it to her but she insisted, you know grandmas. Sent me out with a plate of food too, nice lady.
Duh, what're you some kinda idiot? Although, you did mention 3 or 4 times that it's legal now but I don't have the permit.
Not me
Me
I don't want to hear about what you and your knives do for fun.
this is also terribly formatted holy shit the brainrot is contagious
I'm literally just trolling this idiot this isn't being graded. Speaking of formatting however sentences begin with a capital letter and end with punctuation. Yours should say:
OH when you said "this" you meant your comment, I see.
Nah, I meant your comment for sure. I'd also, you know. trolling isn't a great uhhhh use of the space on the website, I would say. Violation of rule 4 and all that. Also, not a particularly good excuse for having badly formatted content. Whenever I troll, I make sure I'm doing it with long paragraphs on paragraphs of text, to really be thorough. If you were critiquing my formatting, you'd probably be better off critiquing the disjointed and staccato nature of the comment itself. It has three relatively discontinuous parts, I'd say the two latter parts are somewhat superfluous, is the comment itself really worth it, apparently not, etc. I'm effectively saying that your critiques are kind of surface level.
I'd also submit that you and the other guy have had the same exact critique of my comments, which is funny. I'd also say that both of your critiques are kind of moot, since my comments are only like, a line or two at most, and both of you seemed to understand them perfectly well and without flaw. Capitalization is only really necessary when you're seeking to distinguish one sentence from another in a larger paragraph of body of text. If anyone should be throwing that by the wayside, it should be the both of you, since you're both so keen on line-breaking after every sentence.
If your trolling was being graded, which it is, it would be getting a D, for more reasons than just the formatting. I'm gonna also scribble down one of those notes in big red capital letters that says "APPLY YOURSELF" at the top of the page.
how bout u talk bout something ne1 carez about
Edit to add: Btw, idk what you mean by "the other guy's comments," but if you mean the guy I was talking to, politicalasshole or whatever his name was:
You do realize I was directly copying his formatting, right?
Okay, so we're in agreement that you think filling out a form is hard. Don't worry though, the pro-gun community has got your back and that form isn't needed for private sales.
We're really starting to find some common ground now with you acknowledging that the current laws and proceedures aren't working.
Unfortunately, you seem confused about whose problem it is again. These are the laws you're defending, conspicuously failing and resulting in the deaths of children.
If you want me to implement laws I support, I'm happy to do that, but you're not going to like them. On the bright side, if they habitually fail and arm terrorists, abusers and criminals, then you can demand I fix the laws.
And I will, because my laws don't rely on people having an acceptable amount of innocent people murdered because of proceedural mistakes or poor coverage.
Can't you offer any solutions except "you should fix this my problems for me". Why am I supposed to work to fix your laws? Why am I supposed to run the gun company you want? Aren't gun owners meant to be all fiercely independent? All I'm seeing here is the learned helplessness of a spoiled child.
You will absolutely get a visit from their FBI if you start buying the materials needed to fill a truck with explosives. Thankfully, we don't let dumb motherfuckers write and enforce those laws.
Don't know if you're being stupid or dishonest but it's only illegal if you know for a fact that they're a prohibited person.
"Back" to the point you never made? They'd have to be the victim for it to be victim blaming.
Remember, I'm not advocating "people should be charged with a crime when their responsibly stored firearms are stolen", I'm advocating that people should be charged with a crime when their negligently stored firearms are accessed by a prohibited person.
A policy that "responsible gun owners" oppose of course. For some reason it's important to them that being responsible is optional and being irresponsible isn't punished.
It's like having a group of people who constantly say "I would never drive if I was drunk and I don't think anybody should" but then fiercely oppose DUI laws, despite reading daily headlines about how another of their members killed 2 people in a crash when they were drunk.
Not going to bother engaging on that one. You already said something so self-absorbed and fucked in the head that there's nothing I could say to make you look worse.
In fact, I'm just going to wrap up the comment here and not bother replying again.
I was looking forward to making fun of you for trying to insult my mother by saying you pay old ladies for sex but really, nobody with a mind worth changing is reading this far.
Well, lying on that form while showing ID and fooling the FBI's instant background check is hard, yes. I like how you consistently ignore the literal FBI saying "yeah he's clear" and continue to push "it's just paper bro." It's cute, really, you're the only one who believes yourself.
Well give people access to NICs then. Btw it's illegal to sell to a prohibited possessor, so you better be careful selling to strangers, PS is supposed to be between people you know fairly well and if you sell to a stranger with a felony record you get punished as well. Most people selling to strangers only will if they show a CCW permit, even for rifles, because to get those permits you have to pass a NICs check as well so it works as a proxy.
But by all means keep pretending. Hey quick question, you ever even been to the US?
I can agree with you there, procedures* btw, but it isn't the gun laws I want changed, I want better enforcement of other laws that would preclude one from firearms ownership. For instance Parkland, Broward Co had received upwards of 44 calls about Cruz before the shooting, many of which could have given him enough of a record to be denied in NICs, but they didn't do their fucking job. There was also a church shooting in Texas where an ex Air Force guy who had been Dishonorably Discharged (which bans them from guns) hadn't had the DD inputted into NICs and he was able to get it, the Air Force should have done their job and reported it to NICs. Thankfully a guy across the street heard the shots and ran over with his rifle to kill the shooter. Furthermore I think the best way to address our gun violence is addressing the underlying issues. It's harder, but the payoff is greater, and we'll have to fix them anyway e>!!<ventually because gun violence isn't the only problem created by things like wealth inequality.
LOL no, you're the one crying about how buying guns is buying from right wingers, the problem is yours. I'm chillin lol. My suggestion that "you should open up DemGunWorld®™" is what we refer to in the business as "flippant."
I couldn't find if anyone does track it but they have proposed tracking it in 2011:
"As it's proposed, the 'Ammonium Nitrate Security Program' would require those who purchase, sell or transfer at least 25 pounds of the chemical in the U.S. to register with the government so that they may be screened against U.S. terror watch lists,"
So even if they do track it, buy 20lbs, wait a while, buy 20lbs, wait a while...
Looks like that may have died though, latest I can find is from 2011 proposing it, I think nobody does. Would have been DHS btw not FBI.
...so you ARE stupid? It is literally the same people who write and inforce gun laws. You think we have a special "gun law only" congress and police forces/agencies? And as I've said I'm pretty sure that proposed regulation never went anywhere.
Have reasonable suspicion, not know. But that's a risk you can take for yourself, people have been charged. I for one am not stupid enough to take it. May work out fine, may get a prison tour and your rights to guns and voting stripped, the trade off for "making $500" isn't worth it.
See heres the issue with that, you likely think that a safe is the only way to store them "safely" enough for you, but as the laws are set up that isn't always possible (say a carrier leaving it in the car at the bank), it is still behind a locked door however, and for me having someone invade your locked house or car to get your gun is enough to put the onus on the intruder rather than the victim of theft. Take me for example, I live alone and when I'm not home the gun comes with me, do I need a safe to stop my cats from commiting a mass shooting? Unlikely. Could someone break in? Yes, but it isn't there unless I am too, and again I say if they kick in a door the onus is on them, rather than me, the victim of this violent crime.
Negligent discharges, especially causing injury or death but also in general, are punished. Of course, if a gun negligently discharges in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, yeah the guy probably doesn't snitch on himself, sure. Of course, if you drove with a BAC of 0.08 and made it home fine you wouldn't call the cops and snitch on yourself either.
HALLELUJIA! There is a god! I didn't think you had the ability to realize you were wrong!
"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.