Waco Biker Shootout

[Texsox]

CNN said tonight the bikers may be targeting police vehicles to blow them up. My gawd. Throw all these bastards into prison and throw away the key! Barbaric. Hope these bastard bikers are ready to do the time when they do that crime.

[EvilMonkey]

So are you suggesting that because it would not have stopped this, it is a bad law? It's not going going to stop outlaws, no law does. Laws against murder backed with capital punishment didn't stop this. I'm not seeing your point.

 

BTW, many of the people arrested had no criminal history, in fact an AP search revealed that 115 of those arrested had never been arrested in Texas. Almost all of the arrested lived in Texas, so it probably can't be blamed on outside agitators coming to the Lone Star State.. There are a lot of people riding with those gangs that do not commit any crimes. Four of those killed also had no convictions. You've been watching too many movies and reality shows.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-...-biker-31213850

i am suggesting that since it would have not stopped this, to try and USE this as a reason to pass it is the height of stupidity.

 

Biker gangs, who deal in illegal guns, shoot each other. Hey, you know what? I bet stronger background checks would have stopped that! And increased waiting periods as well as clip size restrictions! wrong answer, try again.

 

[Texsox]

i am suggesting that since it would have not stopped this, to try and USE this as a reason to pass it is the height of stupidity.

 

Biker gangs, who deal in illegal guns, shoot each other. Hey, you know what? I bet stronger background checks would have stopped that! And increased waiting periods as well as clip size restrictions! wrong answer, try again.

 

What events should we use instead? Perhaps the shoot out at Disney World that didn't happen which was a great example of the law working?

 

Name a law that stops criminals? Again, laws against murder with punishments that include capital punishment didn't stop them. So we shouldn't use this a reason to pass laws against murder? You are creating a strawman argument.

 

We write laws to establish punishments for those criminals that break the law. What happens in Waco is the people that are caught face many additional charges. Instead of simple assault or something like that they also face a list of weapons and drug charges. Non of those laws stopped anyone, but it does allow the government to lock the criminals up longer.

 

Tax laws didn't stop Capone, but they landed him in jail. But I can't believe you truly are saying don't establish a law because it doesn't stop anyone. Laws don't stop criminals, that's why they are called criminals. We wouldn't have any laws if we only kept on the books laws that stopped criminals.

 

The height of stupidity is saying don't have this law because criminals will ignore it. Duh, that's why they are criminals.

[EvilMonkey]

What events should we use instead? Perhaps the shoot out at Disney World that didn't happen which was a great example of the law working?

 

Name a law that stops criminals? Again, laws against murder with punishments that include capital punishment didn't stop them. So we shouldn't use this a reason to pass laws against murder? You are creating a strawman argument.

How many times are you going to change the topic in one post? I pointed out how advocating for X because of Y was stupid. You are taking it off in so many other directions looking for an argument. YOU are creating a strawman. Any of the anti gun restrictions short of confiscation that the antis would have wanted would NOT have prevented the Waco incident, so using the Waco incident as proof that we NEED those laws to stop MORE Waco incidents is just factually wrong. End of story. You are looking for a bigger argument that I was not stipulating or participating in. Have fun talking to yourself.

[Texsox]

How many times are you going to change the topic in one post? I pointed out how advocating for X because of Y was stupid. You are taking it off in so many other directions looking for an argument. YOU are creating a strawman. Any of the anti gun restrictions short of confiscation that the antis would have wanted would NOT have prevented the Waco incident, so using the Waco incident as proof that we NEED those laws to stop MORE Waco incidents is just factually wrong. End of story. You are looking for a bigger argument that I was not stipulating or participating in. Have fun talking to yourself.

 

One topic, one direction: Advocating that a law isn't necessary because it won't stop a crime is silly.

 

Because we have gun laws, these criminals will face charges. You seem to believe we shouldn't have these laws. No laws, no punishment. I want punishment, you want to protect criminals from punishment because they aren't stopped by a law.

 

Thank you for accepting this plain and simple truth and not replying.

[Jenksismyhero]

One topic, one direction: Advocating that a law isn't necessary because it won't stop a crime is silly.

 

Because we have gun laws, these criminals will face charges. You seem to believe we shouldn't have these laws. No laws, no punishment. I want punishment, you want to protect criminals from punishment because they aren't stopped by a law.

 

Thank you for accepting this plain and simple truth and not replying.

 

You're still missing the point. If none of these tragedies occur, you wouldn't be advocating for more gun laws. But because these tragedies occur, you think they're necessary. Don't you see the disconnect there?

 

And if your aim is to just tack on more jail time, make existing laws tougher. Don't create entirely new requirements that won't do a damn thing but inconvenience a hell of a lot of people.

[LDF]

i wonder when they are going to make a movie out of this.

 

here is a major incident in sidney Aus that was made into a movie Bandidos vs Comancheros. the campbell brothers of the Bandidos were the baddest of all Aus, bikie world.

 

http://aussiecriminals.com.au/2012/05/15/t...perra-massacre/

 

 

[Texsox]

You're still missing the point. If none of these tragedies occur, you wouldn't be advocating for more gun laws. But because these tragedies occur, you think they're necessary. Don't you see the disconnect there?

 

And if your aim is to just tack on more jail time, make existing laws tougher. Don't create entirely new requirements that won't do a damn thing but inconvenience a hell of a lot of people.

 

 

Again, if each time there is a tragedy you say the law would not have stopped it, so the law is bad, there would be no laws. It takes laws to lock these people up.

 

Making the existing law tougher doesn't make sense because not every attempted murder (for example) is the same.

Person A attempts murder (1) with a hammer -- one sentence

Person B attempts murder (1) with an illegal automatic weapon (2) with an extra large capacity magazine (3), another couple charges.

Why make A and B face the same charges?

 

And again I will give this example. Taxing criminal activities. No one expects criminals to pay their taxes, but it has allowed the law to lock up criminals.

 

The damn thing it does is lock criminals up, the same as every other law. It doesn't, and never will, stop a tragedy from happening.

 

And can't you see that criminals never obey the law, that is the definition of a criminal. I will ask again, name one law that has stopped all criminals?

 

 

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Again, if each time there is a tragedy you say the law would not have stopped it, so the law is bad, there would be no laws. It takes laws to lock these people up.

 

Making the existing law tougher doesn't make sense because not every attempted murder (for example) is the same.

Person A attempts murder (1) with a hammer -- one sentence

Person B attempts murder (1) with an illegal automatic weapon (2) with an extra large capacity magazine (3), another couple charges.

Why make A and B face the same charges?

 

And again I will give this example. Taxing criminal activities. No one expects criminals to pay their taxes, but it has allowed the law to lock up criminals.

 

The damn thing it does is lock criminals up, the same as every other law. It doesn't, and never will, stop a tragedy from happening.

 

And can't you see that criminals never obey the law, that is the definition of a criminal. I will ask again, name one law that has stopped all criminals?

 

But it's YOUR burden to show why a law is necessary. We don't consider everything illegal but for some exceptions. We say that everything is legal but for some exceptions, especially when you're talking about a constitutional right. If you can't prove that these new laws would prevent the crime that you're responding to, you've failed your burden of establishing that the law is necessary. Because without preventing tragedies or at least some shootings, they're not.

 

Your point on taxes is wholly irrelevant here. Tax laws aren't intended as a back door to jailing criminals. They apply to everyone equally. These proposed gun laws are specifically targeted for one purpose: to prevent gun crimes. And if there's no proof they will, why have them on the books? Some inconsequential increase in potential charges isn't enough.

 

Also, no one is arguing that all laws are bad. No one is arguing that all laws must prevent crimes to be acceptable laws. But there is some middle ground that you're not understanding and/or are purposefully ignoring.

 

[Texsox]

Let me simplify.

 

Name a law that you couldn't say we don't need because it wouldn't have stopped a tragedy? Using that logic we wouldn't have any laws.

 

We don't need gun laws because it wouldn't have prevented this tragedy.

We don't need assault laws because it wouldn't have prevented this tragedy,

We don't need murder laws because it wouldn't have prevented this tragedy.

 

My argument has been and continues to be:

We don't have laws to prevent these tragedies, we have laws to punish the people who cause these tragedies. No law has ever in the history of laws stopped a criminal.

 

 

[Texsox]

If you can't prove that these new laws would prevent the crime that you're responding to, you've failed your burden of establishing that the law is necessary. Because without preventing tragedies or at least some shootings, they're not.

 

Name one law that has prevented a crime? And how would you even prove it?

 

I can prove that murder laws do not prevent the crime. Are they not necessary?

I can prove that laws against child abuse do not prevent the crime. Are they not necessary?

I can prove that laws against identity theft do not prevent the crime. Are they not necessary?

 

Again, how do you even prove a law prevented a crime? I didn't kill anyone today, was that because of the law? You presumably didn't blackmail anyone today, was it the law? So far no one has killed nine people today, is the law working?

[Jenksismyhero]

Let me simplify.

 

Name a law that you couldn't say we don't need because it wouldn't have stopped a tragedy? Using that logic we wouldn't have any laws.

 

We don't need gun laws because it wouldn't have prevented this tragedy.

We don't need assault laws because it wouldn't have prevented this tragedy,

We don't need murder laws because it wouldn't have prevented this tragedy.

 

My argument has been and continues to be:

We don't have laws to prevent these tragedies, we have laws to punish the people who cause these tragedies. No law has ever in the history of laws stopped a criminal.

 

I'm not going to attempt to read your quadruple negative there, but I'll repeat: you're ignoring that these laws are being proposed on a belief that they will prevent similar crimes in the future if they are enacted. They're not being proposed simply to add more punishment for crimes (and given that a lot of these crimes end in suicides/intended deaths, that wouldn't even make sense). Without the tragedy, there's no push for new laws.

 

No one disagrees with your general point, but you need to move past it to the next level. We already have gun/murder laws. People are punished for using guns in unlawful ways and/or for murdering people in unjustified ways. The question now is do we need these other laws on top of existing laws.

 

 

[Balta1701]

I'm not going to attempt to read your quadruple negative there, but I'll repeat: you're ignoring that these laws are being proposed on a belief that they will prevent similar crimes in the future if they are enacted. They're not being proposed simply to add more punishment for crimes (and given that a lot of these crimes end in suicides/intended deaths, that wouldn't even make sense). Without the tragedy, there's no push for new laws.

 

No one disagrees with your general point, but you need to move past it to the next level. We already have gun/murder laws. People are punished for using guns in unlawful ways and/or for murdering people in unjustified ways. The question now is do we need these other laws on top of existing laws.

Here's one problem with your assertion that "gun laws won't fix the problem" or however you're writing it - we know they won't work when they're filled full of holes. Limiting straw purchases and requiring background checks in Chicago does nothing if the buyers can arm themselves to the teeth by walking over the border to the shop in Indiana that doesn't care.

 

That doesn't mean the concept in general will not work, it means that the concept has not been tried.

[Jenksismyhero]

Here's one problem with your assertion that "gun laws won't fix the problem" or however you're writing it - we know they won't work when they're filled full of holes. Limiting straw purchases and requiring background checks in Chicago does nothing if the buyers can arm themselves to the teeth by walking over the border to the shop in Indiana that doesn't care.

 

That doesn't mean the concept in general will not work, it means that the concept has not been tried.

 

But laws aren't and shouldn't be enacted on a concept. If you can't establish the requisite necessity, in the most narrowly tailored manner possible, it's not an appropriate law.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Texsox]

I'm not going to attempt to read your quadruple negative there, but I'll repeat: you're ignoring that these laws are being proposed on a belief that they will prevent similar crimes in the future if they are enacted. They're not being proposed simply to add more punishment for crimes (and given that a lot of these crimes end in suicides/intended deaths, that wouldn't even make sense). Without the tragedy, there's no push for new laws.

 

No one disagrees with your general point, but you need to move past it to the next level. We already have gun/murder laws. People are punished for using guns in unlawful ways and/or for murdering people in unjustified ways. The question now is do we need these other laws on top of existing laws.

 

I'm not ignoring it. If anyone passes a law because they think it will prevent a crime, they are idiots. I believe I wrote that more than a few times.

 

Laws do not prevent crimes. Laws establish what to do with the criminals. There has never been a law that has prevented a crime from being committed by criminals. So if you use that as a criteria, we would not have an laws.

 

Do we need these laws based on a biker shootout in Waco? No. If that is the only reason these laws were written, that one situation, that is wrong.

 

How about the gang member who is caught with automatic weapons and high capacity magazines while cruising their neighborhood? Now they can be arrested and potentially prevent a crime by getting them off the street instead of being allowed to do nothing.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm not ignoring it. If anyone passes a law because they think it will prevent a crime, they are idiots. I believe I wrote that more than a few times.

 

Laws do not prevent crimes. Laws establish what to do with the criminals. There has never been a law that has prevented a crime from being committed by criminals. So if you use that as a criteria, we would not have an laws.

 

Do we need these laws based on a biker shootout in Waco? No. If that is the only reason these laws were written, that one situation, that is wrong.

 

Tex, you're being a bit narrow-minded here. Laws ARE passed to prevent crime and/or socially unacceptable acts. They're also meant to provide punishment for those acts. But if there is no concern for preventing the crime, then there's no point in having the law. DUI laws have prevented me from driving drunk. Speeding laws have prevented me from driving 100 mph everywhere. I pay my taxes so I don't have to go to jail. Those laws prevented my potential criminal behavior.

 

How about the gang member who is caught with automatic weapons and high capacity magazines while cruising their neighborhood? Now they can be arrested and potentially prevent a crime by getting them off the street instead of being allowed to do nothing.

 

You're talking out of both sides here. It's not about preventing crime, but let's make it possible to punish gang bangers for having guns so we can possibly prevent crime?

Edited May 26, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Texsox]

How would you show that a law prevented a crime? What evidence would you accept?

[Jenksismyhero]

How would you show that a law prevented a crime? What evidence would you accept?

 

A sizeable reduction in shootings would help. But when there's so few of those shootings anyway, tough to say that a change in gun laws would be connected.

[Texsox]

A sizeable reduction in shootings would help. But when there's so few of those shootings anyway, tough to say that a change in gun laws would be connected.

 

That sounds subjective.

 

It is easy to say anything about the Waco shooting in favor or against. The Waco shooting shows how the laws worked. With more guns, more ammo, more higher power weapons people in neighboring businesses would have been killed. With higher capacity more people would have been killed. Those weapons were not present making this a lot better than the horror it could have been.

 

But obviously there is no objective proof to that statement. Just like saying this is an example where the laws do not work. Again, you are placing an impossible burden on any law if anytime the law is broken you can say, see it didn't work.

 

Also, more and more evidence is coming out that the cops over reacted in arresting everyone in sight. The latest is a guy without a motorcycle that just drove a few friends there to hang out with other friends. Now a father of three who had never been arrested lost his good job and still sits in jail.

[EvilMonkey]

It is easy to say anything about the Waco shooting in favor or against. The Waco shooting shows how the laws worked. With more guns, more ammo, more higher power weapons people in neighboring businesses would have been killed. With higher capacity more people would have been killed. Those weapons were not present making this a lot better than the horror it could have been.

According to CNN there were over 1000 weapons seized including AK-47's. I am sure that those had at least standard capacity magazines.Try again.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/05/20/er...pons-seized.cnn

 

Edit

Other news sources say the total weapon count closer to 300, with about half being guns, mostly handguns. Good job, CNN.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Alpha Dog

[Texsox]

CNN reported what the cops were saying. Good job to the cops for not knowing what the count was.

 

Alpha, what proof would you accept that a law works?

[LDF]

That sounds subjective.

 

It is easy to say anything about the Waco shooting in favor or against. The Waco shooting shows how the laws worked. With more guns, more ammo, more higher power weapons people in neighboring businesses would have been killed. With higher capacity more people would have been killed. Those weapons were not present making this a lot better than the horror it could have been.

 

for the most part, i have been staying out of this.

 

but come on. there is always going to be a source to acquire weapons, even if it is going out of state. it is part of the illegal activity that thrives in the US.

 

if you need proof, see how the government is dealing with yrs of strict laws concerning drugs.

 

[Texsox]

for the most part, i have been staying out of this.

 

but come on. there is always going to be a source to acquire weapons, even if it is going out of state. it is part of the illegal activity that thrives in the US.

 

if you need proof, see how the government is dealing with yrs of strict laws concerning drugs.

 

I agree. Are you suggesting that any law that does not stop illegal activity should be dropped?

[LDF]

I agree. Are you suggesting that any law that does not stop illegal activity should be dropped?

 

haha.... nice trying to putting words in my posts.

 

i am not going there.

 

 

[Texsox]

haha.... nice trying to putting words in my posts.

 

i am not going there.

 

Then what is your point? I have said again and again that criminals break laws. That's not a reason to eliminate laws.