1089
Maryland bill would force gun owners to get $300K liability insurance to wear or carry
(foxbaltimore.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
1089 points (97.8% liked)
politics
19241 readers
1701 users here now
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 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
An AR would be a TERRIBLE choice for a rattlesnake.
That's why they make these: :)
https://www.bondarms.com/bond-arms-handguns/snake-slayer/
>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.
That is neither ad hominem nor a personal attack. You did lie about me twice. Right here: https://kolektiva.social/users/bigMouthCommie/statuses/111867533172612302
Are you going to deny it now? Will this be lie number three?
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.
And this is lie number four. I never suggested anyone shouldn't listen to you.
> never suggested anyone shouldn’t listen to you.
this is actually implied by your other statements and gives the lie that you are operating in good faith. I will be reporting most of this conversation. feel free to do the same.
I implied no such thing. I cannot stop anyone from listening to you and everyone is free to listen to you.
Doing the "I'm not a liar, you are" thing after I pointed out every single lie you told is a bit silly, don't you think?
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
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.
And this is lie number four. I never suggested anyone shouldn’t listen to you.
I have never once attacked you personally. That is lie number five.
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.
The easiest way to deal with a bear in downtown Baltimore is to tell them you aren't into large, hairy dudes.