>

With the crazy people who just shoot to kill someone, isn't that putting a price tag on a school child's life? What would it be a price scale based on grade level or age of student? Then the tax payers end up paying some of the cost?
Notably he represents Uvalde. His proposal would allow victims to sue state officials as well as police for their conduct. Obviously doesn't stand much chance in Texas but thought it was an interesting proposal. >

It would bankrupt the state. >

A failed system needs replacing. >

Just to flesh that out. 
This is a system endorsed by the state, a system that causes harm to citizens. 
Compensating these victims would bankrupt the state. 
The state supports a level of harm to the public that they are unwilling and unable to compensate. 
This is state sponsored violence on citizens with tax breaks for aggressors >

They can afford it but they care to much about “MUH PROFITS” >

I’ll be honest if money is the only language they understand and if we’re playing into capitalism, then the solution has to be money oriented. 
Require licensing for every gun and make it a rigorous process that requires reapplication for certification on an annual basis, including medical reports, psychological assessment and mandatory safety training certification at regular intervals. This generates revenue that way, and operates just like driving license. 
Require insurance for every gun license and every gun. Just like cars. Plenty money for insurance to make it profitable. The more guns you own the more it costs to maintain. Insurance companies can use publicly available social media posts to load insurance, hopefully silencing highly vocal 2A people. Also If you’re negligent with your firearms and cause harm, then insurance is required to pay out, so victims get compensated, and gun owner’s  insurance premiums go up. Permit class action lawsuits for public threatening with a firearm and for mass shootings where even non-injured victims can claim for psychological trauma. Make domestic terrorism the most expensive crime. 
Those that are negligent will lose their license. Those that are repeat offenders will be uninsurable. Make possession of a firearm without a license or without insurance a criminal offence, making money for private prisons. 
Just to clarify a few things, I don’t support gun rights and my preferred option is what goes on in every other country in the world. Heavy regulation and a good reason required to own a gun with specific requirements to be met for every class of firearm. 
I also don’t support private prisons, I only bring it up as an argument to sway the money talks type lawmakers. 
Thirdly I know this is pie in the sky stuff, and pro-2A people don’t care about money. They only care about either owning more guns or selling more guns. 
US needs constitutional reform top to bottom. 
Biggest offender is FPTP electoral system. >

Completely agree. My bare bones ELI5 argument against these dudes is, you need more testing and licensing for a car than a firearm. I don't see how that's just cool with them. But their view is one step towards sensible action might as well be the ATF kicking down their door and holding their dog at gunpoint while they sweep their house and take their pistol. It's just never gonna happen when we have these "it's a slippery slope" arguments getting any sort of weight when it's simply a bad faith way to not have to put any effort into something that's such a large responsibility >

You actually need ZERO testing, licensing, registration, or insurance to buy, own, and drive a car as long as it is on private property.  You only need those things when you want to drive the car on public roads.  The equivalent would be that you could own any gun you wanted as long as you never carried it in public or on public property (aside from non-use transport).  
That wouldn't be the worst thing though.  Having testing, insurance, specific carry equipment requirements (holsters), and registration (for that specific gun only) in order to carry a gun in public would be a fairly good thing.  The same arguments for public safety could also apply as to why those things are required.  It would likely mean that full reciprocity would be needed as is true with driving licenses.  
While that wouldn't fix our violence issue in America or solve all gun crimes, it would simplify some things and help ensure we knew who was supposed to be carrying which guns and those guns were being carried safely.  It would also have some possibility of getting through, because it would have a few pro-2A points (full reciprocity and fixing some stupid ATF rules). >

I don’t think you’re allowed to keep an unregistered vehicle on your property in NJ. I think that varies by state. >

If the car ever leaves your driveway, it has to be registered. So unless you’re a survivalist living in the woods with a ton of acres to roam around on, you gotta register your car and need a license to drive. >

And I don't think it will even be brought to the floor for discussion in state house.  Not until most of the R state lawmakers are voted out of office, at least. >

Even Texas liberals are pretty pro-gun. >

I'm a progun liberal and I support this. 
Trying to figure out am I in the minority? >

Because the more you read, the worse it gets.  The bill also wants to repeal the law that makes it illegal to sue a gun manufacturer/seller over a gun being illegally used, it's just buried a bit instead of in the headline. >

In your words, what’s so unreasonable about that? >

It's unreasonable to sue a manufacturer or retailer for their product being used illegally.  They have no control over what the customer does after the fact.  
It would be like trying to sue 3M or Walmart because someone used a roll of duct tape in a kidnapping.  The act itself is the illegal part, and the manufacturer/retailer has no power over the end user beyond saying "please don't break the law".
And before you bring up "gun sellers should be responsible for checking out the people they're selling stuff to", there are already background check laws in place and so on with regards to guns being sold.  The issue is that the system is poorly run so the existing gun control restrictions don't even do what they're supposed to.  That's not something that more gun control laws can fix. >

I really hate this reporting.  There's like one paragraph of useful information,  and then drama between politicians for half the article.  
Under what circumstances would state agencies be liable? For what reason.  
What is the proposed standard of liability for police conduct? 
What is the proposed tax? Is it oppressive such that firearms become unreasonably expensive? 
The only thing that was given context was the suing manufacturers, which appears to be related to marketing towards children. >

Well it has no chance of passing in TX so obviously the details are not fleshed out since they're not relevant. It's just an idea from one senator. >

Thought bubble for a sound bite. >

It is better to have set a precedent for the idea existing than it is to have sat silent and waited for the right state to do it, no? >

Id argue this type of soundbite just pisses off the average voter.
If anything, its good PR for republicans in texas >

I'm pissed just reading it. Now I'm psychologically opposed because of how uselessly iffy it sounds. >


Texas

lol >

My thoughts exactly. Fuckin' Texas?! >

The state should absolutely be liable for negligence in executing the laws.
The Uvalde police diddling themselves outside is negligence at a minimum, and they should absolutely be held accountable for it.
That said, the population has voted for liberal (in the non political sense of the word) gun laws, so the state shouldn’t be able to be sued for those - the population voted for those laws. >

Headline:"Texas senator proposes gun laws…" 
Me: Aw, shit. What now?
Headline: "…allowing school shooting victims to sue state, impose firearms tax”
Me: What. >

Political theater with no chance to pass >

I think it's insulting that you call this political theater. Yes, there's a miniscule chance of it passing but please go to the article, look at the grieving members of the Uvalde families and tell me this is just political theater. Things gets proposed over and over and over and they fail over and over and over until one day, they actually pass. Just like ObamaCare. Just like Biden's economic recovery plan. Just like going after Big Tobacco. >

I saw.  It's pretty sick to use grieving families as political props. >

And there are just so many grieving families. A never ending supply to use. >

He won't be a senator after the next election. >

And yet he's still got the balls to try it.  I think if more politicians were more concerned with doing the right thing, people wouldn't be so cynical about elections. >

Totally rad dude. 
Do it. >

Lawmakers vote to make themselves hold accountability?  Hah! >

sure, but more like lawmakers vote to make law enforcers accountable. >

I don't understand how a state legislator thinks they can overturn a federal law (PLCAA).
I am, however, all in favor of any legislation that pokes holes in qualified immunity, which is a travesty. >

Why would you be able to sue a company when their product is miss used? Should you sue liquor companies for a drunk driving incident? What about kitchen aid for using their knives to stab someone? We need qualified immunity or every company could be sued put of existence. >

Sure sue the state, but a tax on firearms is a classist excuse to disarm only the folks you don't like. I'm sure that won't disproportionately effect minorites and vulnerable people at all. >

Exactly this. Dems for years fought against voter ID laws calling them racist because they put a larger burden on minorities, but then put on the hood when it comes to gun laws. >

"Put on the hood"? Good lord. >

Don't get mad at me that gun control in the US is almost exclusively rooted in racism and many of the new gun control laws being proposed would disarm minorities more than white people. >

This would be more convincing if people on the right spoke up more about Philando Castile. >

Lots do, but you won't see it as much hanging out in Democrat dominated subs like r/politics. His death, and the lack of accountability on the officer's part were a tragedy. >

Keeping guns out of the hands of the poor will reduce crime. We should also tax their right to free speech because they are usually uneducated and could spread misinformation. 
Or maybe we don't put a tax on constitutional rights. >

How does this constitutional right help anyone. Look at literally the rest of the first world and all of their gun laws, and how little shootings they have and the fact that their streets and schools feel safe, and then please tell me how you think keeping this stupid ass “constitutional right” is better for America than putting actual gun laws in place? Like I talk to Americans online quite often, and both them and me are stunned when I talk about how I feel happy leaving my doors open and walking around my neighbourhood at night, while they tell me they’re spending half their lives regularly fearful of being shot. >

"while they tell me they’re spending half their lives regularly fearful of being shot."
I'd bet very good money the people they're afraid of getting shot by dont have legal guns that would disappear (confiscated/bought back) with a gun ban since they cant be traced. 
So yes, some of us realize that with the number of untraced guns in this country, what you want, good intentions regardless, would put some of us at much more risk than we are in now.
Sorry for the incomming book, but I'd like to throw a thought exercise at you and if you're willing, I hope you discuss it honestly (I only say that because i always get snarky comments in return).
If you're lucky, there's a 5 minute wait time for police, most likely more. Now truly imagine someone breaks in to your house. You dont know if they're armed, you call the cops and again, at best you have 5 minutes alone with this person(s) in your house. Gun ban or not, chances are if they had one before it, they still do. 
So two options.
You can unlock your pistol and aim at your bedroom door until the police get there.
You sit and wait for police and hope for the best.
If you really wanna take this thought exercise serious, time how long sitting for 5 minutes really is. Or try 10 since thats more likely.
In my situation, I have a little girl who stays in my room more than not. I know damn well what my choice would be. >

Try 20-30. My city’s response time is horrible because we are understaffed and there are way too many calls. >

Ah, so it’s just a financial problem? >

In a state that has made it far easier to own and carry guns than it is to vote, not going to pass. >

Finally some common sense legislation from this state. It will certainly fail. >

This is going nowhere. >

Not with that attitude. >

Or in Texas without republican support >

Yeah, Target their money, cause that’s all they care about. If victims can sue officials for more than the gun lobbyists give them in campaign donations, maybe those officials would actually do something about the American gun epidemic. >

If you can tax a gun you can tax a church. Start there. >

Both need to be taxed. Both are national security issues. >

it was an interesting proposal. >

Cool let’s do the exact same thing with drunk driving laws. The State allows alcohol to be sold knowing people will drink and drive. Let victims or families sue the makers of alcohol and the state for compensation. >

Reddit doesn't think poor people should be allowed to defend themselves. >

It’s crazy that the thought here is “let’s create laws that respond to school shootings, instead of prevent school shootings”. But then again these are the same people (meaning Uvalde) that helped vote Abbott back in office, so not surprising. >

Imagine if we had a freedom of speech tax >

Wtf? Sarcasm? >

Both are amendments…… >

Do they both kill children in mass? >

No, but maybe ask yourself.  Just 20 years ago, kids would come to school with shotguns during deer season and nothing happened.  There used to be gun clubs in schools, shooting clubs.  Guns have always been around “assault weapons” have been around for longer than you think.  If we want to go back 40+ years, you could have full auto weapons.  Tell me what has changed? Why are there so many school shootings? The access to guns has always been there.  Maybe mental health? Diet? Social media? Shitty parents? Absent parents? Religion? Lack of morals? No value for human life? What’s really going on? >

Sure there are many facets to the problem but certain people are against funding any meaningful programs to help >

Maybe some people are too busy funding illegal drug use on the citizens dime. >

Maybe a mass shooter tax will work as well. Fucking brilliant. >

If you are involuntarily involved or a bystander in a school shooting, you should be able to get free therapy for life. >

Let’s add liability insurance too. >

If the government allows so much access to so much death, government needs to take additional responsibility for maintaining the general welfare. End of analysis. >

Not sure about this, it would en up being the tax payer getting the bill. >

Question. Will they allow victims of drunk drivers to sue alcohol makers or car manufacturers? Seems like a valid question >

If I’m hit by a drunk driver and I know what bar he came from I can sue the bar for over serving. Same deal >

This is it! Make it unaffordable for the state to NOT act. >

I good start would be requiring adequate insurance for keeping weapons in the house or car. >

Texans are happy to be screwed over as long as the people doing it identify as “R.” They’re more than happy to sacrifice their children on the altar of the First Ammendent, even though they can’t read it. >

That will go over like a popcorn fart in church. >

Only when tax revenue is threatened will the laws change. Such a fucking scam. >

Paying taxes to own a gun?  So are we going to pay taxes for free speech and for women to vote? >

A $400 tax stamp to prevent the government from housing cops At your home.. >

Interestingly, SCOTUS has ruled that the 3A doesn't apply to police b/c they're not soldiers. I think the case came from an incident where police wanted to use a guy's house as a vantage point for a barricade situation and wouldn't let them. Mitchell v. Henderson >

That was kinda the point of my comment. >

I approve of this idea. >

People will laugh at the hopeless optimism of such an absurd proposal. But they don't realize the point is to bring attention to the issue >

Attention to moronic extremism which only further divides us >

This isnt a very good idea. Your just targeting good people in lew of criminals. Why is it easier to get guns into schools and not prisons. >

Probably because we strip search inmates >

So the answer is tax people on their second amendment right. >

Is your answer strip searching children? >

I dont have children, so I dont care about what happens to them. I do have guns, and care about what happens to them. >

I get suing Uvalde PD for their horrible response, but that's it. Taxing constitutional rights is an incredibly slippery sloap regardless of how you personally feel about them. 
We, the US, have been witnessing the rise of fascism with overt dictatorship overtones in our country. In my opinion, this isn't the time to start testing unconstitutional laws for political points. There are a hundred better things politicians need to focus on. They won't, though. It isn't about making things better, it's about pandering to the base to retain power. >

It’ll never happen until god decides to drop another tree on Greg Abbott and every other soulless ghoul running my fair state but I like that these things are even being presented here. >

Shall not be infringed >

Well regulated? >

“Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined,” says Rakove. “It didn’t mean ‘regulation’ in the sense that we use it now, in that it’s not about the regulatory state. There’s been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.”
In other words, it didn’t mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty. >

in their opinion >

I didn’t see that anywhere in the article.. what I did see was 

Our guides will be Constitutional experts >

This is still an opinion piece >

It's not an "opinion" that this was the way the term was used in the 18th century.  It's a historical fact. >

I support this. This nations gun laws are political malpractice >

You live in a state with tight gun laws, that's how the US works. >

That's how America is. I wouldn't say it's working particularly well. >

“D -San Antonio”
Yeah this’ll never get broad support
Allowing victims to sue the state is good, but would likely result in unintended consequences 
Plus the government loves to argue it has no duty to protect people.  Check out the story of Joseph Lozito if you don’t believe me >

Important people would have to be directly effected by gun violence, probably multiple times, for anything to change. Gunned down, rich and important people like congress members, senators etc. are the only bodies that will bring change to our gun laws. 
Hundreds of children in schools or thousands of impoverished minorities every year are not important enough. >

Even then rich people can afford to get firearms or have armed security. The poor will always lose >

I've recently realized that unless there's a financial hit to wealthy or politically tied individuals, then mass shootings will continue. As long as the "only" thing that is lost is human lives, then nothing will change. >

As a gun owner. I think every gun should require insurance the way a car requires it. >

Should be allowed to sue the GOP and the NRA. >

For what?
Some vague idea that somehow society at large and elected officials personally are actually responsible for some teeny minority of people who go berzerk? >

Yes, precisely. It's called stochastic terrorism. >

I don't think you know what that means, because it makes no sense to think it applies here. >

Stochastic terrorism is when people with political power, a large platform, or a position of authority demonize a group or promote a type of behavior that increases a specific type of violence without direct provable causality, but statistical evidence. Like for example, government officials repeatedly saying China is evil, or intentionally caused covid, or is trying to ruin our country or economy, and many bad things are specifically the fault of China, then a celebration of lunar new year is attacked by a crazed gunman. >


but statistical evidence.

Lets see it.
We can pretty easily do a little thought experiment.  Who do you want sued for the attack on the supreme court justice last year?  And who do you want sued for the lunar new year attack? >

If you haven't read the article, go read it. Look at the faces of the families of Uvalde victims. Families of 10-year old Lexi Rubio, 11-year old Uziyah Garcia and the parents of Jackie Cazares.  Families who have drawn into this misery through no action or fault of their own. Now think of all the little children in your life...you could be one of those families today. Tomorrow. If you have children in your life who are simply going to school, that could be you. Or me. On any given school day in America. 
Yes, this bill will likely fail to pass. But it is not mere political theater. For the sake of our country and our humanity, it better not be. >

I don't think this will pass, and if it does pass it won't be able to stand up to a Supreme Court challenge.  I hope I'm wrong though.  2nd amendment rights have a cost, and those exercising their 2nd amendment rights should bear that cost.  Tax the ammo, tax the manufacturing of guns, tax the sale of guns, put those funds in a gun violence victim fund and research fund to decrease gun violence. >

They would just argue that those taxes act as an infringement against their 2A rights. >


a tax on state gun sales

Infringement by regulatory costs. It's not unconstitutional because it doesn't prevent the gun sale but it makes it just that much more expensive and thereby restricts sales from those who could otherwise afford it.
It further doesn't apply to private sales, thus discouraging ownership of new weapons. As a gun owner who is deliberately paranoid that my gun will always fire on its own and that any used gun is unsafe, this is again a restriction.
That said, the only problem I actually have on this is it's evil devious manner of restricting sales to the richer among us. Because, for some reason, it's somehow reasonable to only let richer people own guns or something. IDK, I'm just a person who isn't rich and isn't a politician. >

Infringement by regulatory costs is 1000% unconstitutional if it’s not reasonable. It’s basically a poll tax. >


create a permanent compensation fund for victims of school shootings by imposing a tax on state gun sales

I'm pretty sure that if anyone tries to say that it's unconstitutional then they're going to point at that fund and then at what was done to the tobacco industry.
However, I like the parallel you draw at gatekeeping rights with a poll tax. That's a very good point. >

Is smoking tobacco a constitutional right? What you are proposing is 1000% unconstitutional. Can you impose a tax on speech to create a permanent compensation fund for victims of defamation? >


What you are proposing 

Not me, I'm quoting the article. Calm down, please, thank you. >

Tax money from gun sales should go to mental healthcare >

It already goes to wildlife protection. >

Those are not the same thing… >

“bills that, if enacted, would empower survivors of school shootings to sue Texas state agencies, allow Texas law enforcement officials to be sued for their on-the-job conduct, create a permanent compensation fund for victims of school shootings by imposing a tax on state gun sales, and repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a federal law that shields gun sellers and manufacturers from liability.”
Typical democrat thinking, address the symptoms and hold everyone responsible except the ones who actually did it (the shooter, and his family if a minor, mental health agencies or retailers if they missed symptoms or didn’t do a full check), AND create unintended consequences where no one will want to be cops unless we pay for unlimited liability insurance for them, get taxpayers to paper over every problem with money, AND destroy US jobs and manufacturers. 
FOLLOWING THAT EXACT LINE OF LOGIC let’s ALSO allow DUI survivors to be able to sue auto and alcohol manufacturers, plus the state and federal governments, and let the survivors of crashes from idiots texting while driving sue auto and phone manufactures and the phone company and the person they were texting.
SAME EXACT LOGIC.
EXCEPT we ACTUALLY have the technology to practically eliminate BOTH of things if we wanted to, but lawmakers won’t make it happen because it doesn’t get them enough votes, OR big enough headlines vs the money that they would lose from those industries.
So tired of useless do nothing politicians who think we are all STUPID enough to fall for this idiocy. >


EXCEPT we ACTUALLY have the technology to practically eliminate BOTH of things if we wanted to, but lawmakers won’t make it happen because it doesn’t get them enough votes, OR big enough headlines vs the money that they would lose from those industries.

Sorry, what exactly is this technology that would practically eliminate gun violence? >

What about gun owners carry insurance and they get sued when they use their guns for violence or fail to report missing or stolen guns? Insurance companies compensate victims and families just like with auto accidents. >

So like a poll tax? >

How about the ability to sue politicians who accept donations from gun-right backers like the NRA? At least suggest this reform and then ask Cruz and his regressive associates what they think about this proposal. >

If I remember correctly the antigun backers spent something like 5 x as much as all pro 2a organizations and I'm more worried about the private parties willing to part with billions to remove rights and power from the people >

I, for one, would like to thank all of the children for laying down their lives in support of our second amendment rights. There is no number of deaths, or piles of dead children so large, that could ever compare to the importance of our right to own guns.... >

Doomed >

Or we could look at gun laws to make it less likely that these lunatics get access to guns. But that’s a step too far for these sorts I guess >

We already have plenty of gun laws which aren't enforced in the first place.  Not to mention that I would prefer we help troubled people not become lunatics in the first place, instead of trying to slap a bandaid on after the fact. >

You cannot make a more American headline. >

Tax firearms like you do the middle class and state coffers will be full. >

So…taxpayers have to foot the penalties from lawsuits? Am I reading that correctly? >

Children are killed and the penalties are money to you? I have no words. >

Crazy loony idea here... How about we try to fix our mental health industry! Cuz fun fact kiddos, we have a pretty crappy one. Many of these shooters Uvalde included where complained about for their behavior before the incident and NOTHING was done. Mental health in this country is shamed and seriously under staffed and under funded, not to mention that since Regan dismantled the institutional system (it was broke who needs to fix it right) we lack facilities. I know what some will say you cant make people get seen, but hey if its not readily available (right now you end up on a waiting list) you CAN NOT get seen anyway.. >

Ah, so that the problem can be solved with money. The taxpayers money. More money for a terrible government. That’ll fix it. >

Yup,
The gun manufactures are in it for the money.  Time to use "going after money" to counter this. >

Too many people make too much money from school shootings for us to ever do anything about it. >

The media? >

Undertakers >

Genius! >

Literally the only way to force private/public venues to impose security requirements. Guns are going nowhere. Make locations liable for gun violence, you’ll see upped security measures and deterrence levels increased. >

It’s getting old seeing mass shootings happening everyday. Some days we have 2 a day. ‘Merica >

Get used to it. I've been seeing this exact same thing since Columbine. The only thing that's changed is conservatives making guns easier to obtain. >

Here's the thing. This is the most complex social issue we have here in the US, and the cherry isn't even on top yet. 
Very soon, if we're not already there, large-scale illegal gun manufacturing hubs will be established, where quantity is king and serial numbers are emojis. It's also possible that a small network of facilities to be capable of producing large numbers of weapons for whoever antes up. The technology is ready and waiting for this eventuality and on a scale we haven't seen before. 
We must at least attempt to understand each layer of this mess apart from our beliefs and politics. We must be rational going forward to allow the ideas to meld together in the most effective way. And we need each other >

Have them sue the NRA for further ruining the country. >

Should be sue Republican Party. >

What a wonderful idea. Instead of instituting common sense gun laws that would prevent the vast majority of such tragedies, how about we just offer to replace their kids with a pile of money, simultaneously creating a new burden on the system and doing absolutely nothing to solve the problem. >

This is the only way that effective gun laws will be enacted...so I say, go for it! >

While most of America would support these laws, republicans simply don't think that way.  More guns openly carried in every place and situation is their solution to our gun problems.  A good guy with a gun drops a bad guy with a gun.  That's their philosophy.  Making America one giant gun range with little protection from government or the law. >

Firearms taxes are classist as fuck--and arguably racist, too! America is a dangerous and violent place, and lots of people living in shitty, crime-ridden areas need weapons to keep themselves from becoming further victimized. There is tremendous privilege in being able to rely on the corrupt and ineffectual US police force keep you safe from the predators and criminals. And for a lot of people--especially black Americans, though the risk exists for people of all skin colors--the question of  which is more hazardous (that is, calling the cops for "help," or just attempting to deal with the criminals yourself) is a very real, very serious, very (potentially) lethal conundrum. FFS, do I really need to give a list of all the innocent people who have been fucking murdered by the police, at this point? 
Further, taxes like this would do absolutely nothing to regulate firearms acquired on the black market--which most firearms used to commit crimes are. Archetypal murdering pieces of shit like Kyle Rittenhouse often use "legally purchased" guns, sure...but most firearm assaults and murders in the US aren't committed by archetypal murdering pieces of shit like Kyle Rittenhouse! Most gun violence in the US is, in fact, perpetrated by criminals in the commission of another crime!‎ Increasing taxes on firearms isn't going to help much there.
The reactionary laypersons who take to social media following a widely publicized shooting, proposing superficial firearms legislation almost universally miss the big picture, instead focusing on one specific element (i.e., "mass shootings") of the much larger, much more complex and, much more fucked-up problem of violence in the US. We desperately need to take action, but they need to be actions that will actually fucking do something to stem the absolutey insane levels of violence that exist in this country, instead of just making a bunch of privileged people feel safer. It's not at all unreasonable to think that increasing taxes on guns would likely just end up being just another security theater charade like the TSA--and only for those in the audience who enjoy a high(er) socioeconomic status.
Look; I, too, wish the world, and the problems in it were simple, and easy to understand and address...but, they're just not. >

Wait. They don’t even TAX guns? Some states even tax groceries and meds. 
Wow. >

I  believe this is an additional tax. >

Not all states do. WV removed all firearm taxes in 2021. Some states and localities have laughably small firearm taxes (Seattle added a literally flat fee of $20 per firearm in 2016, in addition to the state tax - $20 on top of a multi-Benjamins purchase isn’t much of a tax).
I can’t find anywhere that guns are taxed in TX, even though their state name is an anagram of taxes. >

Imagine living in a world where food is taxed but guns are not. Lol >

Well, you HAVE to buy one of them, the other one just stimulates the economy and murders people >

What a world! Elementary school children needing to sue people! >

Zero chance of anything even remotely related to this happening here.  Don't forget that Uvalde voted overwhelmingly for Abbott.  It's maddening. >

This is so awesome. If these fucking republican wack jobs won’t do anything about the guns then fuck em. Texas is about to lose a lot of money. >

They shouldn't just be able to sue the state, they should be able to specifically sue the legislators that refuse to act. >

That’s who the taxpayers sue when they can demonstrate harm right? >

My understanding is they're suing the office/seat not the individual, and that it's taxpayer money used in restitution, not the legislator's own money.
But I'm willing to admit I might be seriously uninformed. >

No you’re right.  I just wish tax payers could then class action sue individuals directly for harm proven from a tax payer payout. >

Exactly, nonfeasance should absolutely be a legitimate reason to sue an elected official who failed to act on something when there is legitimate reason to act on an issue.
Receiving reports that we have a reporting issue and a white supremacist problem within law enforcement, and not acting on it is nonfeasance, and should be an offense you could sue over >

Any taxes or fees for gun ownership only hurts poor people and makes it easier for the ruling class to continue to supress us. >

So will they also allow folks to be able to sue auto makers if someone is killed in a hit and run or a someone use the car as weapon ? This is an attack on constitutional rights. Our rights are not to be taxed. >

Raise taxes on firearms to pay the settlements.  And future settlements. >

No. Talking about any kind of ban or tax makes people buy more guns. Give a tax break to people who do NOT own guns. >

Give a tax break to people who do NOT vote. >

Give a tax break to people who do NOT speak their mind. >

Sue Ted Cruz for 1000 times his senate salary. >

An American solution to an American issue. 
God forbid you actually fix the real problem >

Which is American society. Normal people don’t commit atrocities just because they can >

And this hurts anyone but innocent gun owning citizens how? How does this hurt criminals?
How come you want to control guns but don’t want mandatory sentences for the pieces of shit who use the guns in crime???? >

All of for the most part don’t understand the bill of rights to the constitution is it keep the government in check not us. So please explain to me why it’s OK to tax, right? You guys sound like a bunch of socialist anti-Americans >

No chance it comes to fruition and if it did, they'd just raise state taxes and the people would be paying for this. >

I’ll take bills that won’t pass for $1000, Alex. >

If this actually SOMEHOW managed to pass, guns would be illegal in Texas tomorrow. Republicans only care about dollar signs >

Elected Texicans will never go for it.  They've made careers out of selling the right to kill, poison and maim their citizens for the purpose of increasing profits. But if THEY have to pay the victims for the results of their legislation, it would be their total ruination. >

Why are you making it Texas problem? (And what’s with the diet racism?) Imagine California or New York doing this - they have some of the most dumbass laws around crime. If someone is victimized as a result of something like a no bail policy where a criminal commits a crime after being released on such a policy the State should be liable. They would NEVER pass such a law because they’re never going to hold themselves accountable for placing citizens in a vulnerable position - there is no difference here. Texas isn’t going to open itself up to any liability. >

Yes, let's just tip toe around the problem. Jesus Christ >

America is too cowardly to grasp the nettle so you may as well find ways to help the victims and their families than do nothing. >

Interesting… have politicians put their money where their mouth is for once. Bet there will be smart gun laws in no time… >

This is actually a fantastic idea. Want to keep your guns? Fine. If anything bad happens, the state can pay restitution to the victims and their families. >

I had to read this three times. Hard to believe it's coming out of Texas. >

This is going to be met with the usual (and maybe some unusual) excuses why this should never happen. >

How citizens can’t already sue gun manufacturers is a travesty. >

News coverage should stop being censored when it cones to mass shootings. If you want the right to bare arms the then here are the consequences laid bare. See this child here that bled.out from being shot in the chest holding in to this other child whose head has been half obliterated while trying ti comfort her friend and the blood splattered across the brughtly coloured pictures on the wall...  Gov Abbot and his cohorts should be visiting the scene in its immediate after math with TV cameras. He would probanly have a hard time nit wheeling through puddles of blood mught even get some in his hands as he pushes himself around but hey it will wash off. >

Would be a hard sell sadly. I would be totally ok with a $200 public liability tax on any firearms purchase. >

I like it >

Well, if it isn’t the consequences of encouraging Texans to sue their fellow rape baby havers.