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.
Okay, since you’re sharing links, how about sharing a link with me about how many people in Maryland have been attacked by a bear or a mountain lion in the last 10 years.
Actually, I’ll make it even easier for you- how many people in the United States have been attacked by a bear or a mountain lion in the last 10 years?
You know, since bears wandering around neighborhoods that aren’t in Baltimore (Howard county is next to Baltimore and a lot of it is rural- did you even know that?) are such a major threat that we need people to have AR-15s in downtown Baltimore.
im not making a case that bears are the onay reason to own a gun. i’m saying there are bears in maryland, and thats enough reason to own a gun there.
dallas has rattle snakes.
If bears are enough of a reason to own a gun in downtown Baltimore, you can tell me exactly how many bear attacks there have been in the U.S. in the last 10 years.
Then tell me how many people in Dallas have been killed by rattlesnakes (which sneak attack).
the fact they live within a few miles is all the reason i need.
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.
>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.