Where have you been? This is rather common knowledge and I have never, until now, met any anti-controller that denies this fact. Which is no different for US/Mexico illicit trade. What's your point? You make too many assumptions. Your error didn't confuse me, it confirmed that your reference to Columbia was a needless diversion. Sigh,... where exactly did I give you that impression? Hmmmm? I don't recall saying that, and it has nothing to do with my argument. More distractions. I suggest you stop the games and focus on the issues at hand. Just a thought. News flash? Tell me something I don't know. Now, you're just being contrary. Pity. Really? Feigned indignation? You deleted this: "The Homeland Security letter you're speaking of made no such claim. That was entirely your own conclusion, and not theirs. They merely stated that because of the large number of guns that could not be traced, along with some problems with the data collection, that the ratios could not be fully trusted. For you to take their numbers and manipulate them into your own contrived conclusions is all on you." I'm afraid this is another one of your wild goose chases Foglhai. My argument is NOT concerning this "90%" smoke screen. It is about the demand, by paramilitary groups for the very weapons that you claim to be nondescript and comparatively benign. Remember? Irrelevant. This figure was not part of the scope of this particular study. Your 'poison the well' fallacy is growing tiresome. I disagree. The fact that the Belgian Five-SeveN is in high demand there is no surprise. It actually dovetails nicely with my argument, when you consider that 90% of the rifles captured were assault weapons. Also, 63 percent were either assault weapons, armor-piercing handguns, or anti-armor 50 caliber sniper rifles. I'm certainly glad that you're amused, but I'm concerned that I've somehow offended you. Perhaps if you describe my transgression, I might be able to address it. You had stated that the Legislature was "unhelpful and arbitrary" in their gun definitions. The definitions were not "arbitrary and unhelpful" when they were written. It was the gun manufacturers who made the definitions "arbitrary and unhelpful" by their willful manipulations. When the law was first proposed, it passed in the House by a voice vote and with no objections. In the Senate it passed with only 4 votes against it, I believe. I fully understand that you are speaking with 20/20 hindsight and apparently oblivious to what the gun industry has done as to this. Some times a little historical context can be helpful. It is clear in my post that I was speaking comparatively. This is precisely what I meant when I pointed out your pedanticism. Don't let your bias get the better of your critical thinking friend. When it waddles and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. When the gun industry designs, manufactures and sells these guns as military style weapons, then that's what they are. No need to pretend otherwise. Sure, gladly. The reason why is because the gun industry designed and made them that way. Simple. I'm surprised you didn't know this.
Personally I love all the new stock conversions for rifles. I have very short arms and before all the "assault rifle" conversions, I was forced to purchase a youth model rifle of pay a lot extra to get my stocks shortened. Now there are literally hundreds of adjustable stock options for nearly any rifle I could want, from the newest of the new to ones 100 years or more old. I love the new AR-4 adjustable stocks.
I think one would be more likely to see silenced .22 pistols on the battlefield...... 'unhelpful'? What are you,playing scrabble?
Exactly what IS an 'armor piercing handgun'? It's NOT the gun, but the ammunition that's armor piercing,so just about ANY firearm can pierce armor in some fashion, with the right ammunition
You are saying that it is a fact, that the firearm industry created semi-automatic rifles prior to the passage of the AWB in order to get around laws that did not yet exist? If you can find any sort of support for this hilarious claim, I am sure it will be a great read. Since I seem to have lost you somewhere in our discussion, lets boil down the portion of the argument involving Mexico. You say Mexican drug lords import assault weapons, and going with your definition of assault weapon for the time being, yes they do in fact import semi-automatic weapons that fall under that definition. This wasnt the real issue here, but you did claim that they primarily import assault weapons. You offered a VPC report to help support this position. I criticized the report and you responded. See below: Well Dan, if had read my comments you would note that when I looked at the numbers quoted from the DHS, I stated that would mean only 20% of the firearms recovered from crime scenes were traced back to the US. You then claimed that I made a statistical error. However, I was using the numbers cited by the DHS in conjunction with their determination that the reference to the firearms traced (90% statistic) should include the firearms that were unable to be traced. I used the 30,000 as suggested by the DHS and I used an approximation of the 6,700 firearms submitted for tracing as suggested by the estimate of traces in 2008, rather than the 4,000 suggested by the DHS. I am sure you can see where you are wrong, now that I have laid this out for you. And, in fact, you agreed with me that the 90% claim was misleading. When I accepted that concession, you could have taken that as a sign to move on to other parts of the argument. If you wish to continue to dwell, be my guest. But taking this back to your argument about how Mexico primarily imports assault weapons. Well, that didnt work out very well for you either. See below: While I am glad you finally read the report you are still wrong. Armor piercing handguns dont exist. What you are referring to, in error, is that certain forms of ammunition may be able to pierce body armor. But that same ammunition could of course be used in a variety of firearms including bolt action hunting rifles. This is of course a comparative reference. So no Dan, the Five-Seven is just a pistol. That leaves us with 48% of the firearms recovered being pistols and 42% assault weapons. Another way to look at it would be that 52% of the firearms in the VPC report were pistols or rifles that were NOT classified as assault weapons. Poisoning the well is a pre-emptive use of adverse information to discredit something that is about to be said. Im sure you realize that my statement was made after you referred to the VPC report, and well after the report was created. Nice dodge, lets try again Can you explain the difference between one semi-automatic that has been labeled an assault weapon and another semi-automatic that has not? I think some historical context would be very helpful for you. Also helpful would be a better understanding of how the events we are discussing took place chronologically. Event 1: Firearms industry makes semi-automatic firearms. Event 2: Congress passes a law banning the manufacture and sale of certain semi-automatic firearms and labeling them as assault weapons under the law. Now Dan, I am not sure you realize this, but Event 2 took place after Event 1. That means the existence of the semi-automatic weapons preceded the statutory definition of Assault weapon. Let me say this another way for your benefit. The legislature did not pass the law because some hypothetical assault weapon might be made in the future, they passed it because the firearms already existed. The statutory definition was arbitrary and unhelpful because it made arbitrary and unhelpful distinctions between certain semi-automatic rifles. Are you beginning to see where your argument falls apart? You have yet to tell me why some of these semi-automatic rifles that already existed were labeled as assault weapons and why some where not. And please try to remember, the statutory label was created by Congress. Now this is another area where you keep getting hung up. We are talking about the label assault weapon. As I hope you have come to realize, the label was attached to existing firearms. You cannot seem to answer why some of these military style weapons were NOT labeled as assault weapons by Congress. If the firearm industry was selling semi-automatic rifles as military style weapons, and Mexican drug lords were buying these semi-automatic rifles because they were military style weapons, then why was the label applied to only some of these weapons? And please try to remember, those NOT labeled as Assault weapon were still semi-automatic rifles that existed prior to Congress deciding they would not receive the label assault weapon. Wrong again. The semi-automatic rifles that did not receive the label assault rifle existed prior to Congress passing the AWB. Now that we have some historical context, please again try and answer why one semi-automatic rifle that is not an assault weapon is different from another semi-automatic rifle that is labeled as an assault weapon? Try not to dodge.
My but this is disappointing, friend. You appear to be going to ever farther extremes in misrepresenting my positions. I am fully aware, and have long been fully aware of the existence of semi-auto weapons prior to the AWB. I don't know how you came up with that one. The reason I linked you to the VPC study is because the trace data that is available and which is criticized in the government report you referred to is incomplete and not helpful. I see that this did not preclude you from gleaning some insignificance from it however. I have repeatedly told you here that the 90% number is not the point of my argument and I have not claimed any allegiance to it. It has not stopped you however from using it as a red herring. It's interesting (but not surprising) that you would bring rifles into a discussion about pistols. Especially when you are trying to make a comparative relationship of pistols and ammo. The fact remains that the Five-seveN is well suited for Mexican gangsters. Its light, it holds large rounds and it can shoot a high velocity round that will penetrate Kevlar vests. Designed originally as a complimentary sidearm for the P90 submachine-gun it was initially only offered to military and law enforcement. So no Fog, it's not just a pistol. Refer below. sigh,..... What kind of which hunt is this? Did you even read my post? I said: "You had stated that the Legislature was "unhelpful and arbitrary" in their gun definitions. The definitions were not "arbitrary and unhelpful" when they were written. It was the gun manufacturers who made the definitions "arbitrary and unhelpful" by their willful manipulations. When the law was first proposed, it passed in the House by a voice vote and with no objections. In the Senate it passed with only 4 votes against it, I believe. I fully understand that you are speaking with 20/20 hindsight and apparently oblivious to what the gun industry has done as to this. Some times a little historical context can be helpful." You are way off track. Irrelevant. My analogy did not use or mention any statutory label. Sorry. The existence of semi automatic assault weapons prior to the AWB is common knowledge an the fact that they were referred to as such by not only laypeople, but the gun culture itself is also common knowledge. In 1989 the ATF filed a report that recommended restricting the importation of military style semi automatic weapons. In it they defined these weapons thusly: "For the purposes of this paper, it was necessary to settle on one term that best describes the weapons under consideration, and we will refer to these weapons as semiautomatic assault rifles. They represent a distinctive type of rifle distinguished by certain general characteristics which are common to the modern military assault rifle. The modern military assault rifle, such as the U.S. M16, German G3, Belgian FN/FAL, and Soviet AK47, is a weapon designed for killing or disabling the enemy and, as described below, has characteristics designed to accomplish this purpose." The ATF is not a Legislative body as you know and they are well qualified to make weapon definitions. What are you after here? This is totally irrelevant. If you wish to find the Congressional definitions of assault weapons then I suggest you Google it. I have no interest really as it has nothing to do with my analogy. It seems as if you are trying to get me to proove YOUR own flawed analogy. Now THAT's amusing! More irrelevance. The Congress made definitions that were dutifully sidestepped by the gun industry. Were the definitions flawed? Probably, but this has nothing to do with my original argument, so you are barking up the wrong tree friend. I'm sure that the gun industry appreciates your blind allegiance, but you really can do better. Oh really? Are you sure? Try again.
I just bought a nice Colt M6920. I'm going to get some ammo and see how she shoots. I'll update you after I hit the range.
Also I will let your own response speak for itself. However, if you were responding to my post in a contrary fashion just out of habit, and you actually meant something completely different… please feel free to elaborate. No, the reason you linked the VPC study was to provide support for the claim that the vast majority of firearms being trafficked to Mexico were assault weapons. After you provided the VPC report I then provided the GAO report to demonstrate that at least one portion of the VPC report was not credible. And you of course agreed. I don’t see why you keep bringing it up. There is no contention on this part, feel free to move on. As I have already shown, the content of the VPC report didn’t help your case either. Funny, I thought you liked comparative examples, since you were the one who kept bringing them up. I am highlighting the FACT that the pistol your are discussing shoots a variety of ammo, like every firearm. So yes Dan, it really is just a pistol. I just find it funny that the entire validity of using the VPC report rests solely on your opinion that the Five-seven is somehow more than just a pistol. It reminds me of how your overall analogy rests on your opinion that anything you believe is an "assault weapon" is in fact an "assault weapon". The fact of the matter is that the "FN Herstal Five-seveN pistol" is just a pistol and there is really no way to get around it. Which leaves us with your report showing that 52% of firearms trafficked to Mexico are either pistols or rifles that are NOT “assault weapons”. Please try to better address how this report supports your position. Otherwise, it really isn't helping you. Ah Dan, I really do feel bad that I have to keep reiterating this for your benefit. The definitions when written split semi-automatic rifles into two categories, those that were “assault weapons” and those that were not. This is a well known fact and should give you the relevant historical context you so desire. If your analogy was valid, you would at least be able to tell me why some semi-automatic rifles were “assault weapons” and some were not. If they appear to be "assault weapons", your argument suggests they should be called "assault weapons". You have been unable to do this and your analogy continues to fail. However, the label “assault weapon” really has little practical use outside of a statutory context. I am glad you are aware that semi-automatic firearms existed prior to the AWB. Now try and integrate that knowledge into the rest of your responses. Address the difference between those labeled as “assault weapons” and those not. What I am after here is a simple answer to a simple question. Why are some semi-automatic rifles not labeled as “Assault Weapons”? You argument keeps going back to, ‘the firearms industry changed the guns to get around the laws.’ But this is blatantly ignoring the fact that these exact guns existed prior to the enactment of the law. Unfortunately for your position, this gaping hole in your reasoning has everything to do with your analogy, it makes it invalid. The crux of your argument is the following: The fact that some semi-automatic rifles that were designed to look exactly like the military weapon you were referring to are not “assault weapons”, really tears apart your analogy. Ignoring the fact that some of these semi-automatic rifles are not “assault weapons” goes beyond just dodging the entire counter-argument to your analogy. Ignoring this fact is quite simply an outright denial of reality. If you are incapable of distinguishing between a semi-automatic rifle that is an "assault weapon" and one that is not, I suppose I can understand why you would make the flawed analogy in the first place, but of course that doesn't make it valid. In the end, your argument can be summed as this: "I think it is an 'assault weapon', therefore anyone who doesn't is ignoring the fact that it is an 'assault weapon'." Unfortunately, you are assuming your belief is true in order to support your conclusion. If you wish to rest the validity of your analogy on a logical fallacy, then there really is nothing I can do to help you.
I'm amazed and almost speechless. Apparently you have now sunk to the depths of semantics in order to advance your biases. I stand completely behind my own words. Thank you for re-posting them for me. Are you actually hung up because I used the term "changed" instead of "modified"? Really? Even though my argument on this has been consistent from the start both in this thread and others here? Please, Foghlai, you must try to keep up and at least TRY to understand what I'm saying. Everyone else here seems to get it. And how is that any different to what I said above? I hope you aren't going to resort to blind contrariety now as so many others do here. It is very unflattering for you and dare I say, beneath you as well. It was NOT part of the report. It was part of the background or commentary of the report. It had no bearing on the results of the report itself. Once again you have taken a pedantic omission of a word such as "trace", to support your red herring fallacy. Of course "comparative" when concerning pistols would include other pistols, correct? If you were comparing rifles as you are fond of, then it behooves you to compare rifles and not, say shotguns. For you to make claims as to the function of a particular pistol by comparing the round to that of a rifle is not only inaccurate, but it is disingenuous for you. You know this. I'm concerned about the increasingly smarmy tone of your posts. I hope I am mistaken. As you well know, Foghlai, you do not highlight the fact that pistols shoot a variety of ammo by comparing this pistol to a rifle. You are also well aware that "every" pistol is not able to fire the type of round that will pierce a Kevlar vest. As it reminds me how you are willing to ignore the unique demand of this particular pistol by illegal gun runners, how you are willing to ignore the initial design and function of this pistol, how you are willing to ignore the use of this particular pistol by police and military, and how you are willing to ignore the design and sale of assault weapons for what they actually are. I didn't invent these guns, I didn't distribute these guns and I didn't name these guns, friend. Like it or not (and face up to it or not), but these guns are what they are and no amount of foot stomping and indignant and purposeful ignorance on your part will change this. It's only a pity that this little piece of history is all that you need to know. The truth of the matter is that when the legislation was written there were fairly clear lines that could be drawn as to this. It wasn't until after the ban that the lines became blurred by a greedy gun industry as everyone already knows. So now, you wish to blur the lines further by your blind denials and smug misstating of history. Pity, really. I hoped for more from you. If we were talking about toy guns, then your argument might have some validity. Unfortunately for you, we are not. We are talking about finely designed and finely manufactured weapons. Your whole argument hinges on the fact that these guns are not fully automatic and yet there are other functions that make up a desirable military weapon. These functions or features when viewed by themselves do not necessarily determine the type of weapon it is, but when certain features as a group are included on the weapon, then the weapon as a whole can be determined to be a military style or assault weapon. The ATF made this determination well before the AWB, Gun Digest made this determination well before the AWB and most rational and unbiased citizens can make this determination themselves. It's only when one hides behind semantics and pedantics to ignore this reality, that we see the loyal and unquestioning followers of the "King" that don't realize that he is indeed naked. Then I suppose you would have to believe that participating here in this thread "has little practical use", because the OP mentions NOTHING about "statutory" definitions or legislative actions. Nope, his OP concerned an aversion in general to the term itself. This is precisely what I was adressing in my analogy. I have shown you that the term predated legislation so your tie-in there is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the term simply describes a weapon that was designed and sold as a military knock-off. So why not call them assault weapons? It's like resenting the sun for shining. A fools errand in my opinion. You keep going back to this red herring. You are referring to, I suppose, the AWB that is now defunct and expired. As evidenced by the gun industry's ability to get around that legislation, we know that the law was both ineffective and able to be circumvented. It is understandable why you would wish to use their particular definitions because you feel it helps your argument, but it really has little logical value to this discussion. Really? ALL of them? Come on. Nonsense. The AWB of 1994 has no relevance to this. You really need to get off that ride. What a grotesque and twisted summation, Foghlai. I'm not the one who determines how and why these weapons are made. I'm not the one who markets these weapons, and I'm not the only one who has looked at these weapons. Look, all I'm saying is that these guns were designed and marketed to be military style weapons. So why be surprised when they are called "assault weapons". That's all. It's an obvious avoidance of reality to approach it any other way, friend. And when you DO avoid this reality, then you are being just like the townspeople who admired the Kings clothes even though he was actually naked, a child can see it. Apparently your bias prevents you.
There's a lot of conversion kits and parts out there to make an assault weapon. It's easy nowadays to make some great modifications.
Good point Robert. I had considered raising this point, but didn't want to put the discussion onto yet another tangent.
Yes, replacement stocks and new magazines are fairly easy to obtain. Changing the appearance of a firearm is rather easy.
