"Assualt weapons" silliness

Engine power means little for a true sports car...nobody (well, nobody with any knowledge of cars) would dispute that the Mazda MX5 Miata is a sports car...yet they barely topped 100HP for their first six years of production. Even now, they don't top 200, and I recall only top 150 in turbocharged "MazdaSpeed" trim.

 

Care to tie this up with the relevance?

 

Reread your own previous post.

 

Yes, I'm aware of my analogy, but I'm asking you for YOUR point and how it relates to my post?

 

Let me address your second claim first. I know you are aware that supplanting a weaker argument for someone's actual position is the definition of a Strawman argument. If you actually feel that is an accurate statement of my position, please at least quote something I said to support it.

What I will say is that the term ‘assault weapon’ is often applied in an arbitrary way. For example let’s look at the definition of a large capacity magazine, which in some states is ‘holding more than 10 rounds’. In what way does a semi-automatic that holds 10 rounds have a greater capacity to assault than a semi-automatic that holds 11 rounds? Please do not take this as an assertion that large capacity magazines cannot make it easier to kill, obviously it is easier to fire more rounds with a 30 round magazine than with a 10 round one. But this isn’t the important difference.

Weapons that are, in my mind, appropriately labeled as assault weapons are firearms that fire more than one round with a pull of a trigger. That is the definition of a machine gun and really the only true type of assault weapon. Firearms that are modified cosmetically that do not change the rate of fire, yet are still labeled assault weapons, are in my opinion labeled in an arbitrary fashion. Going along with this, without questioning the validity of the label, is analogous to a group admiring the king’s new clothes.

If you were to bet on a car at a race that looked like a sports car, but turned out to be a Volkswagen Beetle, and you lost your money, wouldn’t you feel defrauded?

 

The founders intended for us to have these so called 'assault weapons'. They intended for us to have full access to military grade weapons(I'm not saying that 'assault weapons' according to idiots are military grade).

 

Um..... no. I suggest reading the book "Gun Fight".

It is far removed from the paranoid ramblings of the NRA and Brady Campaign.

 

Sure. Glad to.

You have said; "The functionality of the weapon did not change in the slightest; there was just a more convincing packaging in the second situation to cover up the fact that the firearm was no different than any other single shot rifle."

I was specifically addressing this in my post. There was no straw man.

Of COURSE it's an important difference. Look, before the gun manufacturers started making these semi-auto knockoffs that were designed to look and feel like their military counterparts, we had hunting rifles and perhaps a limited variety of sporting target rifles. Hunting rifles were designed to carry a limited amount of ammo. Assault weapons on the other hand are designed to carry large capacities. If you were being honest with yourself, you'd have to admit that any Mexican drug runner would be far happier with a modern semi-auto capable of being adapted and contorted (if it already isn't) into a functional offensive personal weapon. It's an unavoidable fact that you and others persist in avoiding at the cost of truth.

Typically these are referred to as "assault rifles".

No. This is where you are wrong, and exactly what I have previously pointed out to you. To ignore, as you have the lethal characteristics of these weapons that make them attractive and in demand by Mexican drug lords cannot be avoided. When you hide behind, as you have, the cosmetic conveniences that the gun manufacturers have put into their guns to make them as easily converted and changed to something less menacing allows you to take the position that these weapons are not assault weapons. This, to me is the very epitome of saying the King has beautiful clothes.

The gun manufactures designed and manufactured these guns to look and function (save the automatic feature) as a military weapon. You on the other hand (and others, to be fair) argue that these guns that are in high demand by drug runners in Mexico and gangs in THIS country are nothing more than a mere hunting rifle. It's only odd that these criminals aren't buying hunting rifles, and its also odd that your King has such beautiful new clothes.

I say he's naked. But that's just me I guess.

That is both irrelevant AND a bad analogy. The fact of the matter is that these weapons ARE being purchased and used as assault weapons in human assaults. To say and believe otherwise is to say the kings new clothes are wonderful!

 

It is far from "paranoid" to acknowledge that the Founders believed that every citizen should have access to the same small arms as any soldier. In the late 1700's that was a flintlock musket and pistol.

Today it is a select-fire carbine and a semi-automatic handgun.

This whole argument about so-called "assault weapons" is spurious anyway. Military style carbines are, quite simply, the best and most efficient tools for personal defense that exist today.

 

No, what you were stating is that I felt ‘hunting rifles needed large magazines’ which clearly would be a straw man by itself, or that I felt ‘large capacity magazines would not be a benefit to one in combat’ which is also just as clearly a straw man.

There is a difference between functionality of the gun and added benefit in combat. My comment on one does not mean I support the obviously weaker position which you suggest I have taken. My statement is entirely accurate. The semi-automatic firearm with a large capacity magazine is no different in function that semi-automatic with a 10 round magazine. Each one fires 1 shot with a pull of a trigger. The added benefit in combat is saving space when storing ammo and the marginal difference in time saved when changing mags. There obviously is an added benefit, it just isn’t that big when it comes to semi-automatic rifles.

The only time you would see a real difference in function is when you are talking about large capacity magazine used with firearms that have full-auto capabilities.

Unfortunately the only truth being avoided here is that a firearm with a 10 round magazine is going to be just as deadly as one with a large capacity magazine. If you are going with Mexican drug related murders I believe you will not be able to find a single incident that would have resulted in a different outcome if the shooter had to change the magazine every 10 shots. And I am talking with ‘assault weapons’ that remain semi-automatic.

Yes that is correct. And this is why I am of the position that ‘assault weapon’ is an arbitrary and silly term. To me assault rifles are assault weapons. The statutory construction of assault weapon as applied to certain semi-automatic weapons is just silly.

Again, you remain wrong in your position. Trying to pretend that I have ignored these weapons lethal characteristics is a straw man. Semi-automatic are just as lethal as there ‘assault weapon’ variants. Adding a large capacity magazine does not make them any more deadly. They will still do what they were intended to do at essentially the same rate. Adding a large capacity magazine does change the fact that the rate of fire remains 1 shot per pull of the trigger. The attractiveness to Mexican drug lords is not relevant to the discussion, but does smell like a red herring.

I have considered the points you make. I do understand where you are coming from, but I am just not convinced. This isn’t me ignoring the characteristics, this is me saying, I’m sorry but the King is naked.

Save for the one feature that actually would contribute to a significant change in function? The fact is they do not function like military weapons without this feature. They function like semi-automatic rifles.

I have actually never argued that the Mexican drug cartels are using are hunting rifles. This would again be a straw man argument.

The rifles that the Mexican drug cartels are using in high numbers are likely pistols and automatic rifles. But we were talking about semi-automatic rifles.

Personally, I though the Volkswagen analogy was bad from the start, I was going along with it because it was funny.


I doubt we will ever agree on this. We both believe the other is the one admiring the King’s clothes, which is why I found the analogy to be a poor choice from the beginning. It is entirely too subjective and does not help make your point.

 

They also believed gun registration and the public use of privately owned firearms.

 

We were talking about functionality. When a particular gun functions best as a deer rifle and another functions best as a human or military weapon, then you are addressing its function.

No there isn't. "added benefit in combat" Is ALL about functionality. You might as well be arguing that all guns are the same because they all shoot deadly projectiles.

Can you so easily dismiss the preferences of these gangs when discussing functionality? Really? If paramilitary groups such as these are, seek and use these weapons to the exclusion of others equally as available, then one SHOULD ask why they chose these particular weapons, no? Availability alone will not be accurate because if this were the case then there would be equal amounts of revolvers and shotguns seized from gun traffickers as assault weapons. This is not the case. There is clearly something in these weapons functionality that makes them attractive to this demographic. Entirely a relevant question to ask and your charge of red herring is not a valid one.

Come on. Don't split hairs. The fact that the Mexican cartels prefer this weapon over hunting rifles should tell us something as to this weapon. Your avoidance of this fact is accurate and relevant.

I was not aware that the most predominate gun available to them were fully auto rifles. I do know however that in studying the types of favored guns in south of the border gun trafficking we see that most are assault weapons. The VPC looked at 21 different Federal cases involving Mexican gun trafficking between 2006 and 2009. The vast majority were assault weapons.

Pity that you feel that way. I thought it was a pretty darned good analogy that supported my argument quite well. I also felt that your twist on my analogy was quite clever, but in the end lacking in originality.

 

Well I agree we are talking about functionality. But we are not comparing deer rifles and semi-automatic rifles. We are talking about the difference between two semi-automatics. Changing out the magazine does not change the function between two semi-automatic rifles.

Also, I do not accept that ‘large capacity magazines would not be a benefit to one in combat’ can be interpreted from my statement that two semi-automatic rifles are functionally the same. I feel that is a ridiculously weak position that I clearly have never advanced.

Large capacity magazines do have a benefit in combat, but the benefit given does not make one semi-automatic rifle vastly superior to another. To put it another way, a semi-automatic with a 10 round magazine has just the same ability to assault a human as a semi-automatic weapon with a 20 or 30 round magazine. This is why I feel the term ‘assault weapon’ is silly. To me the marginal difference in combat benefit does not warrant the term because the underlying functionality of the firearm doesn’t change.

I stand by my position that a combat benefit does not necessarily mean change the functionality of the firearm. A large capacity magazine benefits one in combat, true, however the full benefit would only be realized in a fully automatic rifle.

These are the main points of my argument:
“The semi-automatic firearm with a large capacity still fires 1 shot with a pull of a trigger… the only time you would see a real change in function is when you are talking about large capacity magazine used with firearms that have full-auto capabilities.”

I am not talking about the difference between bolt action hunting rifles and semi-automatic rifles, no one has been arguing that except you. I am talking about the differences between semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic rifles with larger magazines. The combat difference between these last two is marginal when talking about 1 shot per pull of the trigger.

I can dismiss the preference because it has no relevance to the statutory difference between a semi-automatic rifle and a semi-automatic rifle with a large capacity magazine. The report below, which to me appears painfully flawed, does not suggest credible evidence that semi-automatic rifles are favored over automatic rifles.

Danct, no one is arguing about semi-automatic rifles versus hunting rifles. Trying to portray my argument as supporting that position is just silly, and is a straw man. We are looking at differences between semi-automatic rifles. Yes, semi-automatic rifles are used for many different purposes. Yes, one of those purposes can be to shoot people. But why would a Mexican drug cartel use a semi-automatic rifle over a selective fire fully automatic rifle?

The report you cite states the following: “U.S. and Mexican officials report that, based on firearms tracing data from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the cartels obtain 90 percent or more of their firearms from the United States. (2) Traces by ATF of firearms from Mexico have reportedly increased from 2,100 in 2006 to 3,300 in 2007 and 7,700 in 2008. (3)”

This is a misstatement of the very quote that that they reference in the endnotes. The quote from that same report from the endnotes is as follows: “according to ATF’s National Tracing Center, 90 percent of the weapons that could be traced were determined to have originated from various sources within the U.S.,”

There is a very, very important difference between “drug cartels obtain 90% of firearms from US” and “90% of traced firearms originate in US”

If you read the ATF report that this information is based on, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09709.pdf, you will notice that the total number of firearms recovered in 2008 were about 30,000. The firearms that were traced were closer to 7,000, and only 87% of those came from the US, or about 6,000. That would mean only 20% of the firearms recovered from crime scenes were traced back to the US.

That leaves 80% unidentified. So no, this does not tend to support the claim that most of the weapons below are weapons coming from the US that have been statutorily classified as ‘assault weapons’.

Also, that report from the VPC only looks at about 500 firearms. I find this report to be very weak. I am looking for more credible evidence on the types of firearms used in Mexico. I will update you as soon as possible with my findings.

But in the mean time, going back to my argument above, which makes more sense? Semi-automatic rifle imported from US, taking into consideration high cost and risk, versus fully automatic rifles available elsewhere for less cost and less risk? If we are going to look at weapons in Mexico it would be a good for us to address which scenario makes economic sense.

Ah don’t get me wrong, you are by far the most fun member to debate on here. And, to be fair you’re one of the only ones who actually debates. I will agree that the analogy was a good way to focus the debate, but in the end it just seemed too subjective to really help one side or the other.

 

Now who is using the proverbial straw man? You are the only one comparing semi-autos with fully autos. Certainly not I.

Look, I fully understand your position. There is really no need to repeat yourself. You are conveniently taking the position that because the gun industry chose to manipulate the cosmetics of these weapons in order to skirt the spirit of the AWB law, then this makes the particular military versions of these semi-autos somehow not military or assault weapons. An interesting if not ironic conclusion to make considering that in the end, the intent of the manufacturer was to make a military style weapon. It is clear there was, and still is a market for these guns and they are anxious to fill that demand.

Now we have protagonists such as yourself that wish to hide behind the intended cosmetic features (or lack of them) to argue some benign functionality. It's really quite a twisted and indefensible position in my opinion. A bag of tricks intended to confuse with deniability the very existence of what we are talking about.

Availability, pure and simple. We share a large border where illegal drugs and guns are constantly trafficked.

Factcheck looked into this. They found this when looking at FOX news misstating the 17% number (not far from your 20%):
"the number of guns submitted to ATF in those two years was 11,055: "3,312 in FY 2007 [and] 7,743 in FY 2008." Newell also testified, as other ATF officials have done, that 90 percent of the guns traced were determined to have come from the U.S. So based on Newell's testimony, the Fox reporters should have used a figure of 9,950 guns from U.S. sources. That figures out to just over 34 percent of guns recovered, assuming that the 29,000 figure supplied by Mexico's attorney general is correct."

"unidentified" Does not mean from outside our country, and the sample size would seem to be large enough in my opinion to give us a fairly good glimpse at this market.

Have you seen this?

Your question makes assumptions you have not confirmed. You assumed both that fully auto rifles are cheaper than semi-autos in Mexico (something I have never seen anywhere) AND that they are easier or at least less risky to acquire. Kinda makes it a false choice, no?

I always appreciate compliments, thank you, even back-handed ones, but as to my analogy, 'if the shoe fits', in that if my analogy is logical, as it was then it is valid and appropriate. If your personal bias allows you to see another application though flawed as it might be, then you are certainly free to do so.

 

I know you are not comparing semi-automatics to full autos. Unfortunately, that’s the only comparison that makes logical sense. At least you are no longer trying to argue that this is about the differences between hunting rifles and semi-automatics, but you are still missing the importance of fully automatic weapons in this discussion.

It appears that your argument requires you to accept the validity of the AWB label first and then use it to support your conclusion. How is your argument any different than saying “These guns were properly labeled as assault weapons under the AWB, because the AWB properly labeled them ‘assault weapons?”

To me, I feel they are labeled improperly, not because of the cosmetics but because they are not fully automatic weapons. The weapons existed before the AWB. They were changed from ‘assault rifles’ in the one aspect they made them functionally different; they did not have a full auto feature.

But Mexico also shares a border with Guatemala and is very close to Columbia where it imports vast quantities of drugs from.

Perfect, this is simply more evidence that the report you previously cited misstated the facts. Instead of the claimed 90% of guns recovered in Mexico coming from the US, you are suggesting it is really only 34% and that report was off by 56%. A pretty big error to make don’t you think?

The article’s first page ends with the premise that “that almost every gun fired in Mexico’s drug war comes from the U.S.” This is just silly, as your citation from Factcheck suggests.

While an interesting read, it relied heavily on quotes and other unhelpful secondary sources. It was not very well referenced and I just didn’t find it persuasive.

The compliment was genuine. However the analogy was not logical. As I have mentioned before, and tried and failed to get you to respond to, the cosmetic difference between a semi-automatic with 10 rounds and a semi-automatic with 30 is marginal. However, magazine size would make a functional difference for a fully automatic rifle. It was not logical to ignore this reality, thus the analogy failed.

I appreciate you feel I am somewhat biased in this argument, however, I am simply attempting to get you to argue from a rational standpoint rather than a subjective one.

Since the Federal Assault Weapon Ban went through its sunset provision, there is no longer a statutory definition of ‘assault weapon’ in close to 44 states. On the other hand, the machine gun ban still exists and continues prohibits possession of “assault rifles”. I think this supports the view that the 'assault weapon' label was arbitrary and that the continued use of it is rather silly.

 

If you admit that I was not comparing semi-autos with full-autos then you also admit to your straw man. See how this works? I was trying not to offend your sensibilities by not mentioning hunting rifles anymore, but it does not change my position at all.

The fact of the matter is that this entire fiasco you are objecting to with feigned indifference, is a situation concocted entirely by the gun industry.

You appear to be looking at the events in reverse. These weapons were from the very beginning, military and military imitations. The gun industry decided for their own reasons to make these weapons more benign in appearance, but they are still capable of shooting many many rounds as fast as one can pull the trigger. This is precisely what would appeal to any para-military group or person hell bent on shooting many people. Hunting rifles do not have this same need or function, as you well know.

Not true. Even Gun Digest, way back in 1984 (I believe) used the term to describe these semi-autos. This was not a weapon that was concocted by myself or even by some lone Senator on Capital Hill.

Smoke and mirrors. These guns were and are designed after military weapons, and some were only changed into more benign looking weapons after the AWB. This does NOT change the fact that they are first and foremost assault weapons. To avoid this simple reality is to believe the Kings new clothes (or lack thereof) are beautiful.

Nope. The AWB didn't change them from fully auto to semi auto. They were already semi auto. I believe that the fully auto market has already been more restricted including a law passed by Bush Senior if I recall. No, this law concerned semi autos primarily and your attempts to bring fully autos into this is not necessary.

Drug trafficking between Gautamala and Columbia is not relevant, and Mexico's border with the US is three times the size of its border with Guatemala. Why would you ignore our large common border and the illicit gun and drug trafficking that goes hand in hand there?

If you are trying to make a valid and logical argument as to the illegal gun trafficking between the US and Mexico, and the amounts and types of guns therein, then you are failing miserably by this sort of blind denial.

No, not at all. It's ironic that you would so readily admit to your own statistical error in order to smear a report that dealt with seized weapons on the border. All because the report didn't include the word; "traced"? Really? Seems somewhat petty to me.

I'm afraid you have lost sight of my use of this analogy in the first place. You've taken this to a different realm (pardon the pun).

But you own observation as to this is a subjective one, no? I feel my position is entirely rational and I believe I have made a good case supporting this.

Interesting spin. The gun industry contorted the definitions by design so therefor there is no definition?

 

My statement, “you are ignoring an important aspect of the discussion by not looking at the differences between semi-autos to full autos”, is not a straw man. The comment on the report was not a straw man either.

No, this ‘fiasco’ was created because of the legislative body that passed the AWB.

There are certain similarities yes, but not enough for the label ‘assault weapon’ to make any sort of rational sense. They are not as capable as full autos in emptying their magazines. And again, hunting rifles are irrelevant to the discussion, as I well know.

Actually, without reading that entire magazine it is unclear if it was actually referring to semi-autos. From what I have seen online, including reading portions of the 7th edition of that magazine, it looks like it is referring to selective-fire semi-autos, those with capabilities of entering full auto mode. And if used in this way, it still supports my position.

No, the guns were designed first and then the AWB was passed after. You keep attempting to use the analogy but it’s still not supporting your position.

Either another straw man on your part or you just didn’t understand what I wrote. I am not arguing the AWB changed anything. The firearm industry made the firearms in semi-automatic form prior to the enactment of the AWB. Taking out the full auto function made them no longer ‘assault rifles’.

The fact that Mexico has a huge drug trade with other countries is irrelevant? Wow, that is probably the most naïve thing you have said this entire discussion. Why would you ignore the vast amount of trading that goes on between Columbia and Mexico? Are you suggesting that this trade does not include firearms?

I’m not ignoring anything, I am simply pointing out that you are ignoring another major area of drug and firearm trafficking. It’s not an issue that firearms come from US and go to Mexico, trying to suggest that this is some point of contention is rather silly on your part. However, ignoring the fact that firearms come from places other than the US is also ridiculously silly.

There is no statistical error on my part for merely offering the opinion of the Department of Homeland Security. If you missed it, it was at the end of the report I gave you.

Leaving out the word traced is changes the meaning and validity of the statement. So no, not petty, rather important as it indicates a lack of credibility that reduces the persuasiveness of the entire report.

Like I said, you were arguing cosmetic differences which the analogy did not support.

To the cosmetic argument yes, which was the point. To the underlying functionality argument no. you have made a good case, but I believe in the end it did not work out.

The design came first, the definition came after. The contorting would be done by the legislative statute passed. The definition would not exist otherwise.

 

It's ironic that you have no problem with repeatedly bring fully auto guns into the conversation, but object to hunting rifles being relevant. Items are typically defined by their comparisons to like items. We have talked about the functioning difference between automatic weapons and semi automatic weapons ad nauseum to no apparent benefit to your own argument due to the fact that a weapon can be an assault weapon without being fully auto.

You seem to have missed the point. You are referring to the 7th edition. The very First edition,... long BEFORE the AWB highlighted these guns.

First, I said; "this law concerned semi autos primarily and your attempts to bring fully autos into this is not necessary."

Secondly, I never said they were assault rifles. I said they are assault weapons. The fact that the gun industry made many of these weapons to imitate their fully automatic cousins has been referred to previously here by myself.

Classic straw man. I never even implied that, friend. I said that Guatemala's drug trade with Columbia is irrelevant. Remember?

I hope we don't have to roll around in the minutiae of South American drug trafficking when we are discussing a King's Clothes analogy. Seems a somewhat silly diversion to me.

More straw man fallacies. I've ignored nothing. I believe I even acknowledged the existence of fully automatic firearms in Mexico earlier. One of my links even discussed it. What I AM talking about however is the demand for semi automatic assault weapons in Mexico as evidenced by their traced crime guns there and the evidence of confiscated trafficked guns at our common border. It is a weapon in demand there in spite of your claims that they are not actually an assault weapon. This is an odd claim to make when they are indeed used there in paramilitary groups.


Let's ignore this in favor of hiding behind convenient and contrived 'cosmetic' rhetoric. THAT's the real issue here.

"silly", Really? Either this is one big straw man or you are completely mistaken. I am not and have not argued that guns and drugs do not flow into and out of Mexico on many fronts. In case you have forgotten, this discussion was concerning your belief that the King's clothes are wondrously beautiful.

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.

Why are you so concerned about this particular issue that has nothing to do with my analogy? It's starting to come across as a diversion, really.

You're confusing an irrelevant comment with gathered data. You appear to be looking a might too hard for a flaw in reality.

And I explained how you were mistaken. See how easy this is?

Rubbish. This term was NOT manufactured by the Legislature. I have proven that.

Look, the gun industry has made these guns to look and act (sans the repeat action) as military weapons, they package them and sell them as military style weapons, so why get a hair across ones unmentionables when they are described as assault weapons? It's not only a classic King's Clothes metaphor but also a terribly inconsistent stance to take. They created a demand for these guns, they've developed ad campaigns that appeal to the inner soldier in us while making guns that act and look very close to their military cousins. But you and others suggest that we should ignore all this and make believe that they are benign and nondescript. Amazing.

You may actually believe that nonsense, but I for one see that the King is indeed naked.

 

You also said “Nope. The AWB didn't change them from fully auto to semi auto.” This implies you misread my post. You seem to be under the false impression that I am arguing the AWB changed the firearms. That's pretty silly. What said was that the firearm industry made semi-automatic firearms prior to the passage of the AWB.

There were both ‘assault rifles’ and semi-automatic firearms prior to the passage of the AWB. I was using the term assault rifle to differentiate full auto from semi-auto. I was not stating anything about your use of the word.

And yet my original statement was about the drug trafficking between Columbia and Mexico. I would ask if you remember, but you clearly misunderstood my post. So feel free to revise your response in light of the fact that I was apparently responding to a badly formulated straw man on your part. Implying my statement was about the trafficking between Guatemala and Columbia is just poor form and rather disingenuous. Try again.

We really don’t. However since you are the one who brought up Mexican drug trafficking, and the relation to drug trafficking as whole, specifically for firearm import/export purposes, would be pertinent to such a discussion, I feel it would be appropriate for you to correct it. So if you feel it was a diversion, feel free to drop your line of argument that started this particular tangent.

A demand for firearms in Mexico can be met elsewhere. For example, Columbia, where there is a vast drug trafficking network.

Paramilitary groups use plenty of firearms. Semi-automatic rifles are one type. Other examples would be sniper rifles, shotguns, pistols, and fully automatic rifles. If semi-automatic rifles are assault weapons simply because they are used to assault humans, would the label extend to shotguns and pistols and sniper rifles? If so, why are all firearms not assault weapons? This is why the term is arbitrary.

From where I am standing, the discussion concerned those who agree with the arbitrary label ‘assault weapon’ and that without addressing the functionality of the firearm can’t help but admire the King’s clothes.

If there was any diversion it began with your use of the VPC report. I was using the GAO report to point out the VPC report you cited was misstating data.

The direct quote the statement from the Homeland security is as follows: “DHS officials believe that the 87 percent statistic is misleading as the reference should include the number of weapons that could not be traced (i.e., out of approximately 30,000 weapons seized in Mexico, approximately 4,000 could be traced and 87 percent of those – 3,480 – originated in the United States.) Numerous problems with the data collection and sample population render this assertion as unreliable.”

Let’s at least get that point cleared up. Do you or do you not believe that the VPC was misstating the data? Do you or do you not feel that the claim “the cartels obtain 90% or more of their firearms from the US” can be supported by the available data?

My statement was that they misstated the data from that study and should be looked at more carefully.

I don’t find VPC report credible or helpful.

But, you were using it to support the position that Mexico primarily imports assault weapons. Please see below for an exciting conclusion to this part of the argument.

I agree they import semi-automatic rifles. But Mexico also imports pistols, shot guns, and fully automatic firearms. You seem to have missed the part of the report that shows that assault weapons were not the primary weapon being trafficked.

Let's take a look at that reality shall we? You said, and I quote "The VPC looked at 21 different Federal cases involving Mexican gun trafficking between 2006 and 2009. The vast majority were assault weapons."

I am concerned you didn't read the report.

The VPC report shows us that 58% of the firearms being trafficked across the border were NOT 'assault weapons'

How is 42% the vast majority?

I suppose it would be easy if you had actually succeeded in making a persuasive argument. But you didn’t, and the VPC report didn't help you much either. Instead, you continued to accept that the King is wearing beautiful clothes.

Yes, I have discussed that the term pre-dated the legislative act, but whether or not the term referred to semi-automatic rifles with no full auto capabilities is not clear. The Gun Digest magazine you referred to would be helpful, but you have only alluded to its existence. What is clear is that the legislature created a new category of statutorily defined weapons. My contention is that the label is arbitrary and unhelpful.

More straw man arguments. Implying that I have ever suggested semi-automatics are benign is laughable. I am saying the term 'assault weapon' is arbitrary and unhelpful.

If you really feel the need to continue using the metaphor, sure, it is a classic King’s clothes metaphor, just not in the way you were hoping.

The term ‘assault weapon’ is vague, arbitrary, and unhelpful in describing the weapon. It’s like calling the King ‘clothed’ because you haven’t figured out how best to describe the King’s appearance, even though ‘naked’ works quite well.

Please explain why the term is applicable to one group of semi-automatic rifles but not others. If you think the King is naked, describe what naked means to you.

 

No, I don't believe I was under that impression. It WOULD be silly however to deny that the gun industry changed these weapons prior to and after the the AWB to get around the spirit and letter of the law. I'm sure that's not what you meant, right?

You seem to make a lot of false charges of straw men.

Look, you stated:
"But Mexico also shares a border with Guatemala and is very close to Columbia where it imports vast quantities of drugs from"


It appeared as if you were talking about trade between Guatemala and Columbia. If that's not what you meant then I apologize.

In any event, Guatemala shares a border with Mexico while Columbia in on a different Continent some five or six countries away. While there is evidence of drug trafficking between Mexico and Columbia, You haven't shown me anything as to gun trafficking between these two countries. Isn't that the point of this?

Interesting spin. You seem to be forgetting that the purpose of my referencing Mexico and our border trafficking in the first place was to show the demand for these weapons by paramilitary groups. You, on the other hand have made a vague reference to Guatemala and Columbia with no historical substantiations for an argument that is not forthcoming. Thus far the only reason I can see for your reference is to muddy the waters. Hardly a noble pursuit, in my opinion. Your choice.

Still no substantiations? Not a very strong argument in light of this glaring absence.

This is simply a rehash of your original argument and more proof of your belief in the King's wonderful new clothes. We'll all just make believe that the gun industry doesn't design and sell these guns as military knock-offs. Perhaps we should call them "love brooms". What magnificent clothes!

Thank you. This is precisely what I was talking about. Your reference to this report was contrived and false. I already summarized up their conclusions, but you deleted it. All you did by making your erroneous 20% claim was defy the very thing they were saying.

I believe that they erroneously referenced this 90% number, however you fail to acknowledge that this reference was not part of the report itself. You couldn't even say it was ancillary.

The name of the report was:

"INDICTED
Types of Firearms and Methods of Gun Trafficking from the United
States to Mexico as Revealed in U.S. Court Documents"

Guess you missed that.

Excuse me. I should have said "vast plurality". My error. They are the single most prevalent item in this report and they were 90% of the rifles seized at the border. Not insignificant. Nice try though. The report supports my argument.

Once again, You're confusing an irrelevant comment with gathered data. You appear to be looking a might too hard for a flaw in reality.

Even the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Digest-Buyers-Guide-Assault-Weapons/dp/0896896803/ref=pd_sim_b_1#reader_0896896803"]new[/ame] editions refer to assault weapons as semi automatics. The first edition also included semi autos. Your argument is trite and pedantic. I used to have a link to the first edition, but it is unavailable to me now.

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.

My, but your pedanticism is reaching new bounds. It is clear in my post that I was speaking comparatively. We all know that guns are not benign tools. There's nothing there, so move along.

Ooooh, what a stretch! And you call MY use of the fable weak! You almost have to stand on your head to see any sense in that analogy.

You really must drop the analogy from your argument. It has a poor fit.

The term is applicable to a weapon that is designed and sold as a military knock-off. Why is this such a surprise to you? Are you actually looking at the King, or maybe his ideology? I see you are a true believer.

 

It sure isn’t. It really would be silly to suggest the gun industry changed the weapons prior to the passage of a law, in order to get around the law. I’m sure that’s not what you meant, right?

I accept your apology

Much of illicit trade does not get documented and this would include gun trafficking. There is an interesting site that shows export data from countries into Mexico. http://www.prio.no/NISAT is the site for the Norwegian Initiative on Small arms. Aside from the US, Italy appears to be the biggest trafficker of firearms to Mexico. The reference to Columbia was to point out that firearms likely come from other places than the US. I am sorry if it confused you.

My reference to Guatemala and Columbia was to highlight that trafficking takes place between places other than the US. I know, it seems to baffle you that firearms could possibly get into Mexico from places that are not the US, but they do.

The same arguments again. Dan, the military versions fire in full auto. Can you explain the difference between one semi-automatic that has been labeled an ‘assault weapon’ and another semi-automatic that has not? Perhaps we should just call all firearms “Assault Weapons” because they can be used to shoot people.

You seem to have a veil over your eyes. The King is naked, friend, I’m sorry if you can’t see it.

Deleted it? Danct, I am becoming increasingly afraid you aren’t reading my posts. I quoted the conclusions from the Department of Homeland Security for you. Why would you need to summarize them when they have been provided to you? They are saying the “87%” assertion, the same one made by the VPC, is misleading. It’s really not that hard to grasp.

I am glad we finally agree.

Even if you had not made the initial mistake, your correction is still inaccurate.

Let us once again look at that reality. The ‘vast plurality’ as indicated in the report is pistols. That is 48% compared to 42% of assault weapons. You appear to not have bothered to read the report.

And this is my analysis of the data directly, not the comment which we now agree was erroneous.

I accept your admission of the initial error, but you might want to consider just conceding that the report doesn’t help your position at all.

My, what a classy debate style you have there, Dan.

Once you can substantiate your claim as to the Gun Digest magazine we can resume that portion of this amusing argument.

It is clear from your posts you were making simplistic straw man arguments. You claim you were saying we should look at how the guns act, however if you remember I was the first one to bring up functionality. And no, they don’t act like their military cousins, they do not have full auto capabilities.

I know you are having a hard time facing reality, but the analogy really only works one way, and it’s unfortunately not the way you planned.

Please don’t continue to let your personal bias get in the way of a rational discussion. Just 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.

 

It all boils down to the appearance of the weapon. He's calling them an assault weapon if they have a military-like appearance.

 

Exactly right, yet he can't differentiate between a semi-automatic that is labeled as an "assault weapon" and a semi-automatic that is not. Both would appear to be military-like weapons, yet one gets the label and one doesn't. His argument falls apart when applied to this situation.

 

That would be like calling a kit car based on an old VW chassis,a Porsche..it may look the same on the outside,but the peerformance is ...off

 

Besides being unhelpful, it is entirely too subjective.

The modified 10/22 on the first page make have a "military-like" appearance to someone unfamiliar with firearms, but those of us who are more familiar with military arms and the 10/22, it doesn't look like anything you'd see on a battlefield.