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.

  • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    9 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          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

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 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.

      • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Sure, here you go, exactly the kinds and sources and data insurers are going to look at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7226a9.htm

        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.

        • FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.