As the bill is currently written, local and state law enforcement officers are not exempt from the insurance requirement.
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.
See, the funny thing is that I know that there have been a grand total of two bear attacks in Maryland's entire history, both non-fatal, 46 fatal bear attacks total in the U.S. in the last 10 years. I also know that no one in Dallas has been killed by a rattlesnake.
Reasoning that guns need to be legal in Baltimore because of two non-fatal bear attacks in the state's entire history is ludicrous reasoning.
If you think that guns should be legal, come up with a better argument than 'defense from something that almost never happens.'
I mean how about defense from people? Why did you have to go with something ludicrous like mountain lions? You really can't come up with a non-ridiculous scenario where a gun might be needed in a city?
It's not up to you to determine how much danger do I need to be in before I'm allowed to prepare for that danger.
It's up to me to determine that your reasoning for legal guns is silly and cowardly and there are dozens and dozens of better reasons for legal guns which are neither silly nor cowardly.
Why you literally didn't go with 'home self-defense from intruders' when that actually happens to people I don't know. Instead you go with 'I need an AR to protect myself from rattlesnakes' which, granted, has given me a good laugh this morning, but it's the worst reason I have ever heard anyone make for legal guns.
Honestly, I'm starting to think you're some sort of troll account for someone who is actually against legal guns.
An AR would be a TERRIBLE choice for a rattlesnake.
I need an AR to protect myself from rattlesnakes’ which, granted, has given me a good laugh this morning, but it’s the worst reason I have ever heard anyone make for legal guns.
this is an appeal to ridicule. it is not a rebuttal.
Trying to do the 'this is not a logical argument' thing when you just lied about what I said in another thread is not going to work very well.
Especially when you are trying to go with 'protection from mountain lions' over 'protection from home invaders' as a reason to have guns legal.
this is just poisoning the well.
I know you think you know terms from a college formal logic class you probably never took, but you have still lied about me twice now in another thread and you still have made the worst argument for legal guns I have ever heard.
this is more poisoning the well. poisoning the well is a form of ad hominem, and personal attacks are expressly prohibited on lemmy.world and this community.
Are you going to deny it now? Will this be lie number three?
Even if I did lie about you which I didn't that doesn't change whether what I'm writing in this thread is true. You're attacking the person here by saying "this person did a thing therefore you shouldn't listen to them." it's textbook poisoning the well. it's an ad hominem. it's a personal attack.
qed
which I didn’t
You did. I linked to it. First you said I was saying someone shouldn’t own a gun, which I did not, then you said I was arguing with them, which I was not. Both were lies. So that is lie number three.
You’re attacking the person here by saying “this person did a thing therefore you shouldn’t listen to them.”
And this is lie number four. I never suggested anyone shouldn’t listen to you.
it’s a personal attack.
I have never once attacked you personally. That is lie number five.
qed
You have demonstrated nothing, but I will not call that a lie, I will chalk that up to you likely not knowing what "quod erat demonstrandum" means.
Also, did you delete this post once just so you could add 'qed' to the end? It's "Q.E.D.," incidentally.
