Maryland bill would force gun owners to get $300K liability insurance to wear or carry
3 years ago by MicroWave to c/politics
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.
It will be low. Super low. $300k is pocket change when the incidence for gun carriers to use them is extremely low. It's why we can constantly mock the tacti-cool warriors for thinking they need a gun on them at all times. Plus, the insurance company has way more flexibility in proving their client was not at fault in the incident compared to the shenanigans they have to pull now for car wrecks.
It's why we can constantly mock the tacti-cool warriors for thinking they need a gun on them at all times.
That's doesn't make sense. We mock them for thinking they're in danger without a gun. Insurance is for the danger they create by carrying a gun.
I would bet that tiger attack insurance for someone who brings a tiger with then in public would be astronomical.
The point is to put the burden of cost where it actually belongs. Instead of society footing the bill, now gun owners will pay into an insurance system that will cover costs in the event of damage.
Personal liability insurance exists. It's often included in home or renter's insurance. If someone knows they're likely to end up in a lawsuit because they love punching people, it would behoove them to get that.
But the damage that can be done by a pair of fists is often a low enough dollar number (and jail time) that it can reasonably be paid by the person owning them. A broken orbital socket is a hell of a lot cheaper than, say, three people's lives. There's also unlikely to be collateral damage with fists, since they can only travel so far. Most people can't pay for the damages in a shooting event, and right now that cost is instead being covered by taxpayers.
Insurance isn't for the small things, like a broken window or punching someone. It's for very expensive, sometimes catastrophic damage.
That's certainly what I've been told. The statistics look a little sketchy to me on that front, but I'm not a mathematician and insurance companies will surely do a better analysis than anyone on this thread.
The only sure thing is that insurance companies will try to make as much money off this as possible, especially if it becomes required by law to have.
That's where competition is important. Get a bunch of insurers in the market and the profits they leech will be minimal. But health insurance is a fucking debacle over profits, so I definitely hear your concern.
Don’t some states have laws about profitability caps on insurance?
There were stories of some insurance companies refunding policy holders during COVID due to excess profits.
Well insurance companies might deny coverage for people with a documented past of mental illness or violent behavior, which is more due diligence than many states are apparently putting in.
I mean it's fucked and the proper solution should of course be regulation and proper background checks should not be too much to expect, but if everything has to be a "free market" masquerade then that would still be better than nothing (though I agree not by very much).
That's still not going to stop any crimes. They still have the right to buy it, if they can pass the background check. If they want to commit a crime with it, the fact that it's illegal to do so without insurance means nothing and prevents nothing.
Yeah, that's the typical "but murder is already illegal!" pro-gun argument. I don't think insurance policies are a good solution, but if it at least prevents the "mostly law-abiding citizen with anger issues who will use a gun against someone if given an excuse, but is too much of a pussy to carry one around illegally" from getting a gun, then that's better than nothing.
Well the liability aspect does include some risk.
It also depends if it's on the weapon or person.
Specifically if the gun insured is used in a crime or to cause see harm. It doesn't have to be the most extreme scenario.
If it's per gun, that could easily be hundreds or thousands per month per gun hoarder.
Now think about any of the school shootings and the amount of guns they used. Do you see a kid buying some guns AND having to have an insurance?
You pay for car accidents and they don't pay out for intentional stuff. You don't really hear much about accidental shootings from people while they're out carrying. The act of carrying isn't dangerous.
The act of carrying is inherently more dangerous than not. That is an indisputable fact that you don't even need statistics to know. I am infinitely more likely to die by a firearm if it exists in the first place rather than not.
People living with handgun owners died by homicide at twice the rate of their neighbors in gun-free homes. That difference was driven largely by homicides at home, which were three times more common among people living with handgun owners.
You are walking around with a deadly weapon. We test, register, and insure people who drive around with a deadly weapon.
Nothing about the 2A says you do not assume liability for exercising your right. ain fact, all of US case on this would say the opposite. You absolutely assume liability for both what you do with your weapons, and what you fail to do with your weapons.
There is a definable risk to life and property associated with carrying. And the cost of that risk should be born by those perpetuating it. I hear carrying supposedly makes things safer, so presuming the actuarial tables agree that cost should be totally nominal in which case why not?
Awesome. We're going to apply it to cops too, right?
Right?
LOLLLLLLL if you think it'll make it to a final vote without a law enforcement exemption being added.
Yes, I quoted it in one of my other comments.
The law is not final yet, though. I'm sure there will be a wall of whine coming from the cops about how they're so special and should be exempted. The real test will be if the legistlature capitulates or leaves them in there.
In a lot of states you need to get a license to be a hairdresser but not to be a cop.
What they're saying does make sense, it would just have to come with a few additional changes. Like making law enforcement officers easier to sue directly. Colorado has already revoked qualified immunity. It seems like you are being overly pedantic. No single step will fix the problem but the comment you are replying to is a step in a direction to address the issue
What I'm saying makes perfect sense.
Police misconduct is so rampant specifically because the taxpayer picks up the tab. Cops themselves can weasel out of being responsible for just about anything because they're shielded by their department, or city, or state, or whatever. But if we held them personally accountable -- financially, in this case -- that'd stop that bullshit quick smart and in a hurry. Doctors have to carry insurance personally. So do truck drivers. You want to know why? Because those jobs hold the potential for catastrophically fucking up, with consequences very likely to affect other people. Why should cops be any different?
At the very least this should apply to all police who are not currently clocked in, in uniform, and on duty. Out here in the real world they have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.
Ha. Actually, from TFA:
As the bill is currently written, local and state law enforcement officers are not exempt from the insurance requirement.
So guess who else agrees with me.
I agree with you overall, but I expect taxes will just go up by however much is required to cover the insurance for the officers, so we will continue to pay for their malfeasance.
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 . . .
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.
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.
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
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.
Concern trolling, classic.
wanna back that up with data?
Sure, here you go, exactly the kinds and sources and data insurers are going to look at https://www.cdc.gov/...
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.
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.
Never understood why you have to have insurance to operate vehicles, but not have insurance for weapons, or dogs for that matter.
Because owning of weapons is a constitutional right with very limited means to restrict your rights too.
owning/operating a vehicle is simply a privilege that is easily revoked for any number of reasons, and can have many barriers between you and having it.
Because the constitution was written 200 years ago, and is not fit for the modern day.
In a common sense society that doesnt worship a single phrase from a 200 year old document, yes.
"Well regulated" does not mean now what it meant back then. In the context of the constitutional times "regulated" meant trained, supplied, and such shape ready to fight instead of legislated or controlled by the government.
You could also argue that the National Guard is the well regulated militia.
How do you know that? It doesn't say that in the Constitution.
https://supreme.justia.com/...
SCotUS has ruled that your relationship with a militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is irrelevant to your right to bear arms
edit: clarity
It’s wild that “militia” is still considered relevant.
Like, are we really still in a time when your town of 100 settlers might get attacked by Native Americans from the West and the British from the East?
We gonna ring the bell and dole out muskets to every able-bodied man and boy in the village?
Muskets — and ammo, and gunpowder — from the armory, since it was impractical and dangerous to keep that stuff at home?
And lest we forget, these MFers passed ten amendments right off the bat. They thought we’d be ready to change this shit on the fly as the world evolved.
People say they meant for amendments to be difficult to pass. But they really had no idea what the right calibration would be. It was a new thing! And they had just managed to get unanimous buy-in to start the thing. How hard could a 3/4 vote be?
The militias were mainly for putting down slave revolts
having a constitutional right to carry a weapon does not shield you from responsibility if you misuse that weapon in a way that violates my rights.
Who said it did?
That's what the insurance is for
A vehicle is a weapon.
Anything can be a weapon with enough effort and intent. Even your teeth. You want to start restricting everything that could possibly be a weapon?
I mean, as of right now if you use something as a weapon in a way that breaks the law you're civilly liable. the restrictions are already there and always have been.
But how will militias hunt escaped slaves without the second amendment?
One is a right that shall not be infringed, and the other one is a state-regulated privilege (at least for operating the machine on public roads).
Very simple to understand actually. You can't put paywalls in front of rights, so this will be dunked right down the shitter if it passes, by the courts.
historically the courts have allowed many restrictions to the second amendment, its only modern revisionism thats reinterpreted "well regulated militia" as "literally anyone except felons" and "the right to bear arms" as "gun companies have a right to unrestricted gun sales"
as “literally anyone except felons”
Oh don't worry, they're revising that part too. They want no limits whatsoever. They want felons to have guns.
What a childish response. Your opinion is garbage.
Rights are something that nobody should ever agree to give up - especially a critical right that enables effective self-defense to the common citizen.
Fortunately there's nothing you can do about it, as that right at least is well protected by law and the courts.
SCOTUS would say that the distinction is that we don't have a fundamental right under the Constitution to have a swimming pool on our property. But we do have a fundamental right to possess firearms.
As established in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Any state law impacting this right would be subject to judicial scrutiny and likely strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is applied when a law impacts a fundamental right or involves a suspect classification. Such laws must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
While the right to bear arms is protected, the Supreme Court acknowledges that this right is not absolute and can be subject to regulations. Restrictions such as background checks and prohibitions for certain individuals (like felons or the mentally ill) have been upheld.
However there is legal precedent that excessive economic barriers to exercising a fundamental right can be problematic. For instance, in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966), the Court struck down a poll tax as it constituted a barrier to the fundamental right to vote.
Given these principles, a mandatory $300,000 insurance policy could be seen as a substantial economic barrier to exercising the right to bear arms. The Court would likely assess whether the law is justifiable under strict scrutiny. If the state argues that the law serves public safety, the Court would consider whether it's narrowly tailored to that interest.
If the requirement disproportionately affects lower-income individuals, the Court might view it as an undue burden on the fundamental right to bear arms, similar to how poll taxes were viewed as barriers to voting rights.
All of this is very stupid, and does not happen in normal liberal democracies
Ultimately we need to thank the Roberts Court for teaching Americans that previously established rulings can be overturned, a la Roe
I'm thinking when the pendulum swings back and liberals control the court, we'll take a closer look at the part of the 2nd amendment that says 'we'll regulated'.
'we'll regulated'
Can you imagine the chaos if SCOTUS took a second look at the 2nd amendment (in the original document, for some reason.. just go with it) and found an apostrophe?
It's been chilling there since 1789. How is this the first time somebody noticed it? What tf is "a we'll regulated militia" supposed to entail?? What will be the rippling effects on the state of national politics???
Find out on the next episode of Alternate History by a Pedantic Loser on Lemmy! (I'm sorry)
Even if that potential court swing does happen, we will still be keeping the guns. Americans have 400 million or more of them already, in private hands, mostly unregistered.
I would personally never give up that right, regardless of the law. It's a fundamental human right to self defense.
It’s not the “gotcha” you might want it to be, for dry jurisprudence reasons.
If you take the originalist approach Scalia and Thomas advocate, the original intent as written meant not ‘control’ or ‘restriction’ but ‘orderly’ or ‘well provisioned’ when speaking of military units like armies and militias. No fun, that’s the sticky web we have currently so moving on
THEN you are left with the other end - interpretation using modern means. However there’s a problem here too, because the Bill of Rights follows a template for the text of each amendment outlining “the right of the people [to do X]” and courts have already interpreted that in amendments 1 through 9 that they secure individual rights. 2A has been agreed to be an individual right, just like the other eight, in major cases in 1931 under Miller, 2008 in Heller, and again and again at state and local court levels.
Go get an amendment and do it right, don’t gut the rest of the Bill of Rights. We undid prohibition, slavery, limited suffrage, etc
It doesn't prevent you from keeping and bearing arms, it makes you responsible if you choose to carry a firearm with you, which isn't a fundamental right and never has been.
It imposes a new financial and bureaucratic penalty on all who wish to exercise their fundamental right of self-defense in any area that is not their home. The text of the 2nd amendment does not say that the right to keep and bear arms shall be conditioned on compliance with everchanging insurance requirements. It says that it shall not be infringed.
I agree with your point. But our opinions don't matter. There are 6 people on SCOTUS right now who will see this differently than us, and, ultimately, their opinions are the only ones that matter. And their opinions are not subject to appeal or oversight - they are absolute in matters of Constitutional interpretation.
We have a terrible system that is in need of drastic reform
Self defense with a gun is not a guaranteed right under the second amendment. It doesn't say you have a right to carry a gun. The term "arms" has always had limitations as has the ability to carry a gun. The second amendment is not unlimited.
The justices you mention are anti second amendment, because they won't allow guns into supreme court sessions.
If the Constitution currently expresses a stronger, more irrevocable right to own firearms than to operate a motor vehicle, then it very much has its priorities out of whack, considering which one of those is more likely to be urgently needed by the populace. It needs to be changed. There's a reason they're called "Amendments".
Sorry, but you have no right to cars as there were none in 1776, horse and buggy only.
The Constitution is out of whack. But there is no express right to automobile travel contained therein; there is, however, an express right to firearm possession.
Formally amending the Constitutional is not possible given current political realities. The formal amendment process requires too high of a threshold than could ever be met in 2024
The easier way to amend the Constitution is through the informal process known as "stacking the Supreme Court with people who agree with your desired outcomes." Republicans are very good at this.
Is it firearm, or just arm?
Here's the problem...
We can require automobile insurance because driving a car isn't a right.
Now, owning a gun is a right, and you could argue that wearing or carrying the gun is not, but then you have to go back to New York vs Bruen:
https://supreme.justia.com/...
New York used to require special permission to wear or carry a gun. You had to provide special justification for your need to carry and "because I don't feel safe" or "I want to defend myself" wasn't good enough.
Supreme Court ruled:
"We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense."
Given that, I can't imagine they would hold an insurance requirement to be constitutional.
Should Alex Jones be forced to have liability insurance before spouting off conspiracy theories on InfoWars? Yeah, probably. But that's not the way the first amendment works either.
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.
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.
almost always
Can you run 1200fps?
So your advice to people in an active shooter situation is to always run? Not seek cover? Not stay low and observe the situation? Just run 100% of the time? I pray you don't take your own advice.
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
Focus funding and diversion efforts at gang members who commit violence in communities...
There it is lmao. Like gangs are the problem.
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.
"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.
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).
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
I see what they want to do: no sane insurance company will provide such contracts unless they either:
- make the customers pay exorbitant prices
- 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.
This solves nothing, except for the rich getting the sole prerogative to guns.
Personal liability insurance typically costs around $8 to $10 a year for every $100,000 in coverage https://www.policygenius.com/...
Even if this source is off by a factor of 10, what person can purchase a $400+ firearm but can't afford the same in yearly insurance?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Oh you mean the way that let's the monied ruling class stay armed while all the rest of us lowly poors can't be. Surely that genius plan won't ever backfire.
Surely that genius plan won't ever backfire.
And the current gun laws haven't backfired? The country is a fucking mess and none of the pro-gun promises have come true.
Authoritarians have never been more powerful and the guns have done nothing to stop them. The most effective way to keep your family safe is to just move to a wealthy country that doesn't routinely arm domestic abusers, extremists and the deeply mentally ill with the weapons they need to quickly and efficiently kill anyone they want.
You're not a champion of peoples rights, you're a simp for the gun lobby with delusions of grandeur.
There's a difference between bureaucratic bullshittery and willfully making things worse for one specific class.
And what is that difference?
So, let me see if I've got this right.
Maryland wants to have a privately-enforced tax on the exercise of a constitutional right. Do I have that more or less correct? Perhaps you could also have a requirement that all religious congregations or any kind have a $1B policy in case there is sexual misconduct by a member of the congregation?
I genuinely would. I believe that all people (that aren't prohibited due to prior illegal violent actions) should be able to exercise their rights, if that is their choice. I don't think people should be required to own firearms, any more than I think that anyone should be required to vote. But I don't think that the state should be trying to prevent either. And it really pisses me off that gun owners in general want to close off exercise of rights to the "wrong" people, esp. non-white people, LGBTQ+ people, and anyone that's to the political left of Benitto Mussolini.
Not the congregation, but perhaps the clergy should carry insurance. Especially if they're part of a church that has a history of sexual assault in their organization
I would suggest that you look into church sex abuse cases. It's not always the clergy that's committing abuse. Quite often it's members, and the clergy is covering it up because of the priest-penitent privilege (edit: and to protect the reputation of the church; this has been true with the Mormon cult church, JWs, Southern Baptist Convention members, and many, many other churches). (Which, BTW, only means that they their testimony can't be used in an investigation or trial without the permission of the penitent. It does not legally bar them from alerting the police that abuse has occurred.)
The confessional is basically old school therapy - it needs to be confidential, because the idea is that the priest can then influence things that people never want to see the light of day.
For example, a Catholic priest could say that the penance for their actions is to turn themselves in, and they could take that opportunity to confront the person with the reality of what this is like for the victim.
You can argue that at some point, the future harm to others overrides that oath to the privacy of that action, but that's a very complicated ethics question.
The priest could, in any situation, break that oath and be defrocked at worst... But they could also say "I'm here to redeem this person" or "I made an oath and I can't break it", and work them towards coming forward themselves. They could also bend it, and without revealing anything, approach and try to support the victim so they feel safe coming forward
The right answer is going to be nuanced and situational, and I'm sure many have failed ethically, but it's not a simple question
If a penitent is unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions, then are they truly penitent? AA tells people that part of their journey to sobriety requires making amends for what they did; why is a child rapist being let off more easily than a drunk?
If I were clergy, I would tell a penitent that there was no forgiveness in this life or the next until they had confessed to police and pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. In my reading of the bible, this is not a conflict; James 2:18 says, "But someone will say, 'You have faith, and I have works.' Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.". Real faith, and real repentance, requires an outward manifestation, although the manifestation is not proof by itself of faith. So a penitent that is actually penitent--and thus ready to accept the forgiveness of their god--must be willing to accept the secular consequences of their actions.
That is a very good perspective. Thank you for the thoughtful and reasoned perspective. You've given me many things to consider
Yeah.....about that
That is optional insurance, not mandated by a state law. You can already buy insurance (Edit: for firearms) to protect you in case of negligence, or prosecution for something you claim is self-defense.
Well, yeah, actually I can, because of the history surrounding that text, and what it meant when it was written.
The part you are conveniently ignoring is the body of the constitution prior to the bill of rights that gives congress the power to raise an army, and to equip that army. If congress already has the power to raise an army/militia and provide arms for them, then why would you need an amendment saying that congress can't pass laws to prevent itself from arming an army? (For your reference that is Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power ... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years ...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions ... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
Moreover, when you look at the bill of rights, all of the rights are pertaining to individual people (or people and states, in the case of 10A). It's pretty clear that the freedom of the press isn't a collective right, but one that is an individual right.
Beyond that, you need to understand what they meant by militia; the militia was every able-bodied male below about 50 (not sure on the exact age cutoffs); in many cases they were legally obligated to provide their own arms (despite the constitution saying that the gov't could pay for them), those arms were required to be militarily useful, and they were required to train both on their own and with other members of the militia.
Are we going to start with the police?
Did…did you even read the brief?
As the bill is currently written, local and state law enforcement officers are not exempt from the insurance requirement.
I think they mean, while on duty. That statement right there is just saying they don't get a pass while they're off the job, just because they're LEOs.
“[This] legislation aims to enhance accountability among police officers, particularly addressing the disproportionate impact of their misuse of deadly force on the black community,” Brownlee said. “In essence, the legislation introduces a mechanism whereby repeated violations of the statute could lead insurance carriers to consider an officer a liability, rendering them uninsurable.”
Doesn’t seem to, at least from the follow up
O damn, I stand corrected. Unfortunately lumping in the police to this means it has no chance to pass. The police unions won't let this move an inch.
No.
Federal officers are fully immune though.
Yes, they wouldn’t have authority over that
This would go to the supreme court who would rule that restricting the right to bear arms to someone's financial status is unconstitutional or some shit.
Well tbf "no guns for poor people" is pretty classist.
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?
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.
And that's why you want less guns going around, not more
My constitutional right to an AR 15 depends on my ability to pay $2,000 or whatever they cost. Not in my budget. The old bank account needs more freedoms it seems.
This is a joke, but seriously though - how is affordability an argument when guns also cost money?
Not every gun is $2,000. A Taurus is $<300
And your right to bear arms is irrespective of the cost of a gun. Inheritance, gifts, etc.
sure 2 grand is a lot of money, but dont go and tell me your car is affordable because you spent 10 grand on it.
Or that your house was worth the money, or whatever place you rent currently, or all those things that you probably pay for monthly.
It's a one time cost, for a weapon, that if correctly maintained will last basically forever.
Reasonable vs unreasonable expense. You need to buy a gun, ammunition, and a training course? Not a problem. You need to buy a gun, ammo, and a $300k golden stamp, that's not fine, because it is prohibitively expensive.
If this type of insurance is illegal or prohibitively expensive, then this will be struck down. If not, it might be permitted, or it might not. The supreme court is extremely conservative right now, so I suspect it would be struck down regardless.
That should be part of a citizenship test. If you fail, you should probably not be allowed to own a gun. Or vote.
I could build you one for ~$350. It would function fine, just be made out of inferior parts (and make more work for me because QC), A2 furniture, all that jazz.
I don't have Maryland® Gun Insurance™ but I do have car insurance, and a one time payment of $350 is cheaper than my car insurance by a hefty bit and I have a good driving record. Thing is, insurance payments are recurring rather than one time so it starts to build up.
So is your right to food though. No ones legally bound to give you food if you don't make enough money. Thank goodness people do, but that's not because of any type of law requiring them to do so. Theres nothing on the books that would make it illegal to allow people to starve. Furthermore, all rights are dependent on money because who's going to stop violating the righrs of someone who cannot sue them?
As a non American. Why the fuck do you need access to an ar15 or whatever that was in the first place though. Normal people would think that pushing accessibility away from the common man is a fucking good thing! Are you also interested in getting your hands on chemical weapons while we are at it? do you see it as a problem when your government is trying to limit access to mustard gas or chlorine gas for the common man?
Bit by bit, these bills could help the US to get into the 20th century and start to catch up with Western world civilization.
Also non-American here and I have indeed eyed an AR-15 once or twice. That'd be contingent on me getting a hunting license, though, and while I'd like to it's probably something for retirement.
Why AR-15? Semi-auto, reliable, very accurate. "But it's a weapon of war" a) no it isn't, it just looks like one because it's modern and b) your grandpa's Mauser 98 is a weapon of war, it probably even was on the front!
>Bit by bit, these bills could help the US to get into the 20th century and start to catch up with Western world civilization.
what does "under no pretext" mean?
Well it is. If you're going to let everyone have guns, you shouldn't restrict ownership based on who can afford insurance on it.
I don't think any private citizen should be able to own guns anyway though.
I agree that individuals shouldn't own guns.
I think the second amendment should always been about the right to have state organized militias. I think that is a fair thing to have to avoid tyranny. The convoluted mess of a legal argument that judges have stood up to justify everyone having guns is just insane to me. The ultra minority who have easy access to guns and shoot people up... every single week... is not worth the benefit of having 60% right side hearing loss by 40 like my gun loving friends in the midwest.
Have people in the Midwest never heard of hearing protection or something? I was raised in a rural area and did target and clay shooting a lot. I always wore hearing protection, and my ears work just fine now.
I most definitely agree with your ideas on state militias, especially in more populated areas. I think at least hunting rifles and shotguns should be available to people living in rural areas.
A good point in on your ears…but here’s my counterpoint: protecting yourself is stoopid.
You want gun nuts to wear earplugs at the range, can’t even get them to wear a damn cloth over their face in an ER waiting room.
Not the only one, somalia too.
And instead of complaining for the lack of healthcare, they cry because they are going to tax your Colt and you are not allowed to take it to the supermarket anymore.
Idk I need to get insurance for my car because it might hurt someone. I think this makes sense and is a good step. You have a right to own guns but no one said it would be cheap.
If you are poor buying a gun should not be your priority anyways. why do poor people need guns? It's not like they are going out hunting for their food still.
It's obvious you've never lived in the hood lol. Poor income areas usually have the highest crime and often little to no police presence.
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
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.
I never said anything about brandishing. I was responding to the above comment saying poor people don't need to buy a gun.
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.
Idk I lived in Baltimore for a while. I definitely felt more safe when guns weren't around
If you are poor buying a gun should not be your priority anyways. why do poor people need guns? It's not like they are going out hunting for their food still.
YEAH! Stupid fucking poors, if your neighborhood is so dangerous just get a better job and move to a gated community like the one RagingRobot here lives in! You're too poor and stupid to handle protecting yourself anyway and since you're so poor who cares if you die?
Buying a gun only makes your neighborhood more dangerous
@RagingRobot @ArcaneSlime How?
Great, so if someone tries to kill me I should just let them do it for a marginal "increase" in "neighborhood safety" (not my safety of course after I'm murdered.) That makes sense.
If guns make neighbourhoods safer, why isn't America the safest country in the world by a huge margin?
Feel free to stay in the violence free paradise that you've found, but don't tell anyone where this mythical utopia is or they'll surely invade.
Is your gun keeping a third of your country at bay?
If they see you with a firearm, it will be all these excuse they need.
Don't fall for the pro-gun bullshit. Equal access to firearms means nothing because violence always favors the biggest asshole.
Don't tell transwomen how to live their lives. Whatever you are, you do not live up to your username.
So long as there are actual Nazis around, there exists a strong argument for it.
Nazis that have all the guns they could ever want and routinely go on killing sprees with them.
So what exactly is the argument? That maybe one day, the gun laws that armed Nazis might disarm Nazis, even though they'he completely failed to for their last 5 years?
Stop falling for bullshit gun-lobby marketing.
Fine, you can choose to be utterly helpless when the nazis break down your door, and you will then go wherever they tell you. But at that point you can feel free to stop pretending you own the high road. And stop telling those of us who would fight back effectively that we have no such right.
The gun lobby absolutely does not market to people like me. Gun laws will never disarm nazis, only the minorites they wish to oppress.
Nobody should be carrying.
When they say "our democracy is at stake," they don't mean all Americans. They mean them and their friends'.
And how many guns have you donated to the homeless? You're absolutely fine with gun ownership having a cost, as long as you can afford it.
Things have a cost, there's the materials, and unless you are a proponent of slave labor someone had to make the thing. This applies to literally everything. No shit "EvErYtHiNg IsN't FrEe," but everything can be donated if you so choose. The problem with donating guns to the homeless though is it's technically illegal since you do not know if they can legally possess firearms, they may be a felon or "an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside." (ATF Form 4473 question 21f.) Or question 21g for that matter, "Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?" Or 21h "Have you ever been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions?" Or 21j "Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, or are you or have you ever been a member of the military and been convicted of a crime that included, as an element, the use of force against a person as identified in the instructions?"
So what is your tantrum about? The things have a cost that is now higher.
I genuinely can't figure out what you were expecting with that argument. Do you think guns are sold for the cost of materials and labor?
Tantrum? Lmao cute.
Yes, and higher cost = harder for poors.
This isn't rocket surgery my dude. Keep pretending you're an idiot idgaf, you know and I know you know.
Another right-wing bill that gives the rich power over poor, disguised as left-wing bill. All politicians in power are rich, which is why they always push for right-wing politics, democrat or republican, always end up against the working class. There is a good video about this.
Do we really need to help insurance companies make more money? Are thier stocks low?
They're jealous of pharma companies the last few years.
This is a lot like insuring a vehicle. So they shouldn’t make it a flat insurance, which would be regressive, but tailor it to the capacity, ammunition type, and firing rate of the weapon.
That’s what would make it a progressive fee - a basic Saturday Night Special or hunting rifle would be cheap for any poor person to own, whereas a military style machine gun would be cost-prohibitive for all but the wealthiest.
They could even have extra discounts based on user certification and tested skill levels, with surcharges based on discharge accidents and situations where the gun was recorded being improperly brandished or carried.
As the bill is currently written, local and state law enforcement officers are not exempt from the insurance requirement.
I can't wait to see said cops tie themselves into complicated knots trying to explain why they ought to get a free pass but somehow us regular plebians have it different.
Aside from this being a regressive tax, how many unjustifiable shootings result from people legally permitted to carry a firearm?
I appreciate that they're trying to do something here, but this doesn't feel like it's aimed at stopping actually dangerous people. This feels like it's aimed at beating on people who were already willing to deal with Maryland's already more-strict-than-usual gun laws.
But I guess we'll see how this pans out in a few years.
A bit about me for context: I'm Canadian, I have an interest in guns. I do not own any guns. I can imagine myself owning a gun, but don't want one right now. I know a bit about guns, but not a lot. eg Rim fire vs center fire, and that there isn't anything specific that makes a rifle an assault rifle. I support gun regulation but think Canada's recent changes go too far (it's now impossible for a normal citizen to legally obtain a handgun in Canada).
My two cents on this bill:
Every responsible gun owner ought to have liability insurance that covers their firearms regardless of whether or not it's required.
Objections to such requirements based on the cost of insurance could be overcome in a few ways. Two that occur to me off the top of my head:
a. Individual insurance could be not necessary if the citizen is a member of a well regulated militia (but the state could define what qualifies as a well regulated militia, maybe: shared liability, annual training)
b. The state could offer tax payer funded insurance, for gun owners that agree to certain conditions e.g. gun use, storage (and inspections)
I look forward to the comments.
Some of us did have insurance, then a bunch of anti-gun groups pressured the payment processors to stop working with companies that offered "murder insurance."
Man, people will really twist anything into a crime if it fits their agenda, won't they.
Even if it isn't mandatory, having liability insurance to cover accidental death or injury claims seems like a sensible idea if you're a responsible gun owner. And I'm pretty sure that if you DO commit murder, the courts will have something to say about it, not to mention the policy probably won't pay out if it was intentional. Which means they'd have an incentive to actually investigate every claim to make SURE it wasn't murder before they pay you, so you'd actually be likely to have more scrutiny, not less.
Sounds like a step in the right direction. Force people to get insurance to keep a deadly weapon, and at the same time prevent insurance companies from offering that service. A convoluted way to ban private citizens owning guns in a civilised country sounds good regardless?
It's the reason we can't make progress at all on guns.
There are people in the anti-gun crowd who have demonstrated time and again that they aren't acting in good faith when they offer "reasonable" solutions, so the pro-gun crowd now refuses to compromise on anything.
You know why it took so long to get background checks for firearm purchases? It's because gun-owners were afraid of a firearm registry that would eventually be used to confiscate their guns. And that was absolutely a goal of the anti-gun crowd.
You know what got us the background checks? Having a compromise that banned the government from keeping a registry of gun owners, but having dealers keep private records of sales so that any specific firearm could be traced from its manufacturer to the first buyer. It was an elegant solution that drastically improved matters, even if it didn't solve everything.
And that's what compromise allows us to do - move forward little by little.
I would love to have a firearm with smart safety features like a fingerprint scanner, but the anti-gun crowd prevents them from being developed because they pushed for laws that would outlaw all guns that don't have the features once they become available on any gun. The result was every gun manufacturer instantly stopped developing the tech to keep their entire portfolios from being banned.
In California, newer pistols, often with improved safety and reliability, are illegal to sell because any new pistol there is required to have a serial number stamp on the firing pin to mark the primer - a feature that doesn't exist. So you've got guns that are decades out of date being sold new there because they're all that's legal. Glock still manufacturers pistols that are old enough they're out of patent because they can be sold in California. Taurus pistols that have killed people because they fire when shaken are legal there, but the newer ones that fixed the safety features are not.
NICS isn't available to the general public for firearm sales because the anti-gun crowd won't settle for that improvement for the time being, and instead wants to go all-in on background checks and a transfer of ownership for lending a gun to a buddy going hunting. Instead of slow-rolling the path to (very necessary) universal background checks, progress is frozen. Straw purchases are easier because gun owners have learned throgh experience not to trust the "other side."
Nobody on either side is willing to compromise on anything anymore and it's depressing, because progress isn't being made. Gun control advocates' overzealousness is a textbook example of letting perfect get in the way of good. Instead of slow progress we're moving backwards.
I would love to have a firearm with smart safety features like a fingerprint scanner, but the anti-gun crowd prevents them from being developed because they pushed for laws that would outlaw all guns that don’t have the features once they become available on any gun. The result was every gun manufacturer instantly stopped developing the tech to keep their entire portfolios from being banned.
I think the biofire gun might conform to the criteria that you're looking for, but it strikes me more as a "nightstand" gun than maybe something you might want to carry around, and I dunno what you really want your gun for.
I think the tech isn't quite there for a self defense gun because of that stupid New Jersey law that set us back decades.
I'd want it for hunting and target-shooting guns where the firearm failing to fire is an annoyance rather than something that will get you killed.
My self-defense pistol is on my body or unloaded in a locked safe in a hidden compartment on my vehicle with the mag and ammunition locked elsewhere.
But I can't hide my long guns or target pistols as well.
So how much could such insurance actually cost? Does anyone have the numbers to do the maths?
Say a single policy covers any number of guns a person has. So we need a number of people owning guns.
A death is definitely 300k payout. What kind of payout, on average, would injury be? Also 300k because healthcare costs are insane? Less than that?
How many people are killed using a gun every year?
How many are injured?
I wonder what the pure business cost would be for the insurance. I don't actually know how large a profit margin insurance companies run, would curious to sort of blindly apply that here as well.
https://www.theactuarymagazine.org/firearm-risk/
The people who wrote this article are going to be happy with this.
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.
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.
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.
The industry standard is two years. In Brazil, where I work in, is an obligation imposed by our regulator.
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...
wait until you discover things like bears, or mountain lions.
I've seen Disney cartoons. Animals are cute, cuddly, and help you get dressed
you make a good point.
Haha those we actually have. As long as people have been following the rules and not feeding them and locking up their garbage, they don't really like to go near humans. That said there have been problems of people trying to pet the big cats.
And rightly so
Ah yes, that's why a guy living in the middle of Dallas needs an AR-15. Defense against bears and mountain lions.
didnt realize people only lived in dallas, that's crazy.
As much as I'm shaking my head at the Americans crying for the poor poor people unable to afford a gun anymore because unjust extra costs.. wtf do you have 2M insurance on a pet? Worried she'll bite the queen and give her rabies with those 4 teeth?
It's just part of the insurance. It's basic. I pay no extra for it, I'll never claim it, they'll never pay it.
But if a pet could potentially cause £2,000,000 of damage, how much could a gun do? $300k is nothing.
Agree
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.
This is a law. Almost certainly, it'll become much worse as insurance companies and other lobbyists suggest loopholes and more benefits for them
You need to start with something solid, or we've just created yet another insurance industry with some very... interesting profit incentives
I'd be much more on board if the state ran a single option at cost, but this just seems like a mess waiting to happen
I’m only for this if they make law enforcement and government agencies get the same liability insurance to carry as well.
You know it would be paid by our taxes not our of their pockets. And cops would raise the rates for everyone. They shoot far more people than regular law abiding gun owners per capita. Most murders are committed by unlawful owners who wouldn't carry insurance anyway, so the insurance wouldn't pay out most of the time. If this passes I bet it gets stricken down.
If the cost of keeping a “bad apple” on the force gets too high admin might decide to get rid of said apple.
Police agencies have budgets and if the cost of keeping Johnnie McShootins on the force gets too high they might cut him. Other agencies might also have second thoughts about employing ol’ McShootins if they find out how much he will drive up their insurance…
But you are 100% right this penalizes lawful gun owners. This won’t stop criminals.
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.
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.
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
This will pretty much only affect the friends/family of politicians, as they are the only ones that can get a permit to legally carry in Maryland.
I left in 2014 when you had to beg for permission to even purchase a handgun. Have things become better? Since the politicians are still proposing things like this, I assume not.
When I went to purchase a handgun, I was told I would need the permission of the local sheriff, in addition to the safety course.
I'm not going to jump through hoops to exercise a right that protects me from the same people who are attempting to hold my rights hostage.
Also, how many of them can legally carry a gun in Maryland?
Did you sell insurance while drunk?!
Beneath the Mason Dixon Line? Heavens to Betsy!
Unconstitutional, can't require insurance to exercise a right.
It's a good idea that has been discussed before, but is almost certainly unconstitutional. You can't paywall constitutional rights.
If your state doesn't have concealed or open carry laws, you can still 'bear arms' by having them at home and transporting them in proper cases, correct? So this isn't paywalling the right to own guns, just the right to take them around with you like a murdery little comfort blanket.
Well in revolutionary period, no one carried arms really. Unless you were mustering, carrying your rifle around was ridiculous. It was ~5' long, required manual loading before firing, and you had to carry very volatile black powder to do so. So it wasn't an issue then. And if you're a Constitutional Literalist, the Founders wouldn't have wanted people carrying firearms outside of mustering for drills or war.
One of the most interesting arguments I have heard differentiates between bearing arms and simply carrying arms. A soldier bears arms. Nobody would describe a hunter as bearing arms. A hunter simply carries them.
At the time of the writing of the Constitution there were an assortment of small single shot pistols meant to be kept in a coat pocket or tucked into a boot, so it isn't exactly accurate to say the founders didn't envision people carrying around guns. On the other hand they were short range, highly inaccurate, and unreliable. Totally incomparable to modern handguns.
Personally, I prefer to look at the 2nd more broadly as a right to self-defense and that things like a combat rifle are clearly offensive rather than defensive.
IIRC it has been previously ruled that the 2nd covers ammo as well as firearms.
Bootlickers are out in force today, huh?
While we're putting fundamental rights behind financial barriers, I want a poll tax on pro-lifers, anti-LGBTQ, followers of all religions, and everyone else that I don't like. We can make it 50% of all yearly income from any source or 1% of total assets, whichever is higher.
Does that sound like a good idea?
Yeah I didn't read any of that (and I'm not going yo read your reply to this one either) but I just realised how dogshit your DGU stats are and wanted to share.
There are 82 million (legal) gun owners in America and 100,000 DGUs a year.
That's 0.1% of gun owners. 75 million children have to wonder if their school is next so that 99.9% of gun owners can have guns that are never used for anything except fun with their buddies.
Thanks, I'm definitely going to be using this.
Hahahaha I hope this passes. No insurance company would write those policies.
You don't have to be an asshole to want to carry a gun around everywhere. When you're surrounded by people who openly discuss murdering you for your political stance, or your personal identity, or how you were born, and those people are intent on carrying guns to "defend" against threats that do no exist, meanwhile feeding themselves a steady diet of hate and discontent mixed with conspiracy theories... carrying may be the only thing between you and a lynching.
In short: take those people's guns and the rest of us can finally abandon these barbaric relics to the anals of history.
You can insure anything for any reason basically, it's just a matter of price.
But yeah, this would probably be ridiculously unaffordable for the average person.
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
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/
CDC disagrees.
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
can we please stop mandating insurance?
Maybe i'm ok just being sued and having assests forfeited. Maybe im ok just forking over a shit ton of money.
Maybe, just maybe, i dont want to be thrown around by predatory insurance companies looking to wring me of my money for no productive reason (to my benefit)
@lemmy.world
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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
Seems fair. If the risk is low, cost will be low. Let the free market decide, right?
save