>

Do they both kill children in mass?
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……