this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
894 points (97.5% liked)

politics

18870 readers
3753 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 58 points 7 months ago (4 children)

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 . . .

[–] Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

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

Says right in the article what the liabilities are and injury and death are both there, so yeah the gun insurance would have to pay out if the insurees gun resulted in death of someone.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months 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.

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world -4 points 7 months ago

Concern trolling, classic.