Waco Biker Shootout

[LDF]

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

 

you are just arbitrarily saying that ..........

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.

 

and that is not a realistic idea. the ability of getting, in this case weapons, has nothing to do with laws of waco or tx. many of these weapons were brought to the fight. the location was nothing of an incidental location.

[EvilMonkey]

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?

tex, not going there. I didn't say that the law would or would not work. I said using the Waco incident to advocate for the laws, where it would not have made a difference, was stupid. We've been over that more than once and you keep trying to change the goalposts. That's like saying that since a car slid off the road during snowy weather that it proves we need to have mandatory third tail lights.

[Texsox]

you are just arbitrarily saying that ..........

 

 

and that is not a realistic idea. the ability of getting, in this case weapons, has nothing to do with laws of waco or tx. many of these weapons were brought to the fight. the location was nothing of an incidental location.

 

Not arbitrary at all. It was thought out and specifically included, not by random chance.

 

So again, what conclusion should we make about laws in respect to Waco? People keep saying "see the laws didn't work".

 

OK, if you say the laws didn't work why can't anyone state how they would judge a law that does work? No one has been able to answer that. They just create a premise that since criminals broke they law, the law isn't working.

[Texsox]

tex, not going there. I didn't say that the law would or would not work. I said using the Waco incident to advocate for the laws, where it would not have made a difference, was stupid. We've been over that more than once and you keep trying to change the goalposts. That's like saying that since a car slid off the road during snowy weather that it proves we need to have mandatory third tail lights.

 

Again, how do you judge if a law is making a difference? It's a damn simple question that you keep avoiding. The only thing you say is well criminals broke the law. Well again, criminals break laws all the time, it doesn't mean the laws aren't working. You're only point is criminals break laws.

 

So unless you can finally explain how you come to the conclusion that the laws aren't working, I'll assume you don't want to answer the question.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Again, how do you judge if a law is making a difference? It's a damn simple question that you keep avoiding. The only thing you say is well criminals broke the law. Well again, criminals break laws all the time, it doesn't mean the laws aren't working. You're only point is criminals break laws.

 

So unless you can finally explain how you come to the conclusion that the laws aren't working, I'll assume you don't want to answer the question.

Because I never said the laws were or were not working. I said that the laws they wanted would not have worked there, so it was a bad example of the need for the law. Antis INSIST that the laws will PREVENT things from happening. They INSIST that the laws they want would have prevented the Waco incident. I say that they are wrong. The laws may help them add some jail time to them after they are caught, but they will NOT STOP THEM from happening. My point is exactly that criminals break laws and that no law will prevent them from doing what they want to do. Antis seem to think otherwise and use bad examples, like Waco, to back their claim. How much more clear can I make that for you?

[Jenksismyhero]

Again, how do you judge if a law is making a difference? It's a damn simple question that you keep avoiding. The only thing you say is well criminals broke the law. Well again, criminals break laws all the time, it doesn't mean the laws aren't working. You're only point is criminals break laws.

 

So unless you can finally explain how you come to the conclusion that the laws aren't working, I'll assume you don't want to answer the question.

 

I gave you the answer:

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=3168610

 

You're ignoring the reason these laws are being proposed (prevention of mass shootings) and that we're not talking about all laws generally, we're talking about specific laws that are add-on's to other existing laws.

[LDF]

Not arbitrary at all. It was thought out and specifically included, not by random chance.

 

So again, what conclusion should we make about laws in respect to Waco? People keep saying "see the laws didn't work".

 

OK, if you say the laws didn't work why can't anyone state how they would judge a law that does work? No one has been able to answer that. They just create a premise that since criminals broke they law, the law isn't working.

 

again, you are trying to take an incident and mold it for an agenda you are trying to make. i really can't see it. Russia during the height of the cold war. they, Russia who has extremely tough law on crime and criminals still had that illegal activity and criminals.

 

bottom line pls don't take the waco incident to paint it all in one color. b/c there will always be an illegal side of society.

 

i am thru here.

Edited May 29, 2015 by LDF

[Texsox]

Because I never said the laws were or were not working. I said that the laws they wanted would not have worked there, so it was a bad example of the need for the law. Antis INSIST that the laws will PREVENT things from happening. They INSIST that the laws they want would have prevented the Waco incident. I say that they are wrong. The laws may help them add some jail time to them after they are caught, but they will NOT STOP THEM from happening. My point is exactly that criminals break laws and that no law will prevent them from doing what they want to do. Antis seem to think otherwise and use bad examples, like Waco, to back their claim. How much more clear can I make that for you?

 

I agree. All the laws that were broken in Waco did not prevent any crimes.

 

The clear part that I keep asking you is the next step. Because laws will not stop a criminal, what do you want to do about the laws?

 

 

[Texsox]

again, you are trying to take an incident and mold it for an agenda you are trying to make. i really can't see it. Russia during the height of the cold war. they, Russia who has extremely tough law on crime and criminals still had that illegal activity and criminals.

 

bottom line pls don't take the waco incident to paint it all in one color. b/c there will always be an illegal side of society.

 

i am thru here.

 

To be clear Alpha began this segment by stating by making a statement that the laws didn't work.

 

Again, we all agree that criminals break laws. Why is that any proof that the laws didn't work?

[Texsox]

I gave you the answer:

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=3168610

 

You're ignoring the reason these laws are being proposed (prevention of mass shootings) and that we're not talking about all laws generally, we're talking about specific laws that are add-on's to other existing laws.

 

You are creating a premise that is how these laws were designed to work. You are stating this is why the laws were proposed. We all know that laws do not prevent a crime. If we used that criteria we wouldn't have any laws.

 

Again, I ask. Name one law in the history of laws that prevented crimes from being committed?

 

The reason we have laws is to determine the punishment. In the end, that is all they do.

[EvilMonkey]

To be clear Alpha began this segment by stating by making a statement that the laws didn't work.

 

Again, we all agree that criminals break laws. Why is that any proof that the laws didn't work?

I said "You think background checks, waiting periods and smaller magazine limits would have made a difference?" They currently do not have those laws there, so there was no law to work or not work. Shannon Watts advocating for the law and saying it WOULD have worked is what I was complaining against. She used a bad action to try and advocate for her preferred remedy. Yes, criminals break the laws. We both get that. SHE thinks new laws would have stopped them. I disagree, no laws would have stopped them, just hindered everyone else. You go off on a tangent and here we are.

[EvilMonkey]

You are creating a premise that is how these laws were designed to work. You are stating this is why the laws were proposed. We all know that laws do not prevent a crime. If we used that criteria we wouldn't have any laws.

 

Again, I ask. Name one law in the history of laws that prevented crimes from being committed?

 

The reason we have laws is to determine the punishment. In the end, that is all they do.

And that is why I was criticizing the anti's use of this incident for new laws, CLAIMING THAT THEY WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS.

[LDF]

You are creating a premise that is how these laws were designed to work. You are stating this is why the laws were proposed. We all know that laws do not prevent a crime. If we used that criteria we wouldn't have any laws.

 

Again, I ask. Name one law in the history of laws that prevented crimes from being committed?

 

The reason we have laws is to determine the punishment. In the end, that is all they do.

 

Chickens are not allowed to cross the road > Georgia

 

You can be arrested or fined for harassing Bigfoot > Wash st.

 

so far no one had ever been arrested for violating this laws, which are still in effect,

 

[Texsox]

Chickens are not allowed to cross the road > Georgia

 

You can be arrested or fined for harassing Bigfoot > Wash st.

 

so far no one had ever been arrested for violating this laws, which are still in effect,

 

 

 

If you are being serious, that is exactly my point. We drop laws like this because no one violates them. We keep laws that are being broken.

 

The original point by Alpha was don't use the Waco crimes as a reason to add more gun laws, the existing laws didn't stop this crime. If we only added laws that would stop crime, we would wind up with laws about Big Foot and chickens crossing the road.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

You are creating a premise that is how these laws were designed to work. You are stating this is why the laws were proposed. We all know that laws do not prevent a crime. If we used that criteria we wouldn't have any laws.

 

Again, I ask. Name one law in the history of laws that prevented crimes from being committed?

 

The reason we have laws is to determine the punishment. In the end, that is all they do.

 

But this is wrong. Does a law prevent ALL crime of a certain type? No. But it's moronic to say that laws don't prevent ANY crime of a certain type. People curb their behavior because X action is illegal and because of the potential for punishment. This is a bedrock to our system. We don't pass laws just to create a punishment. That's obviously a part of it, but we use laws to, in theory, curb behavior. We don't pass DUI laws just to have a penalty in place. We pass the law in hopes that people won't drive drunk and kill people.

 

No law is ever passed on the theory that "well, i don't care if people do X, but if they do, I want a punishment in place." It's always "I want to stop X, so we're going to implement law Y with punishment Z." It's ALWAYS about preventing/changing people's behavior.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[LDF]

Chickens are not allowed to cross the road > Georgia

 

You can be arrested or fined for harassing Bigfoot > Wash st.

 

so far no one had ever been arrested for violating this laws, which are still in effect,

 

 

but with ref to these laws.... can you imaging the huge traffic jam that will happen, all those poor chickens getting killerd. then the poultry industry will go down the tubes. the poor farmers who will go bankrupt. no money for their family, and then those drivers who killed the chickens, they might even start spewing. they might be traumatize and will stop eating meat all together.

 

now you will have the poor cattle farmers and pig farmers going bankrupt.

 

re in wash st. the poor poor creature, this law was est in the 60's or 70's. can you imagine now, this creature will be this old pathetic, arthritic creature who prob has a hard time getting around, just b/c some young whipper snapper wants to terrorize this creature and take pictures. remember this creature prob doesn't have senior citizen medical coverage.