>>You posted in message# 1572542.
>>Fact. Countries with strict gun laws are a hell of lot safer than the US is. And this is a FACT.
>
>>but now :
>
>>>This is about gun related death and violence, Not about general violent crime stats.
>>>You twist and turn to ignore the point do ya?
>
>Taken out of context in the discussion.

It is not only perfectly in context but is a textbook example of moving the goalposts. You doubled down when you accused me of twisting to ignore the point, thus projecting and you now triple down when you seek to narrowly define "safety" here:

>Yes it is a fact that countries with strict gun laws are a hell lot safer than the US. Australia's success is that since 1996 no single mass shootting has taken place, while in the 18 years before that, there were 13 (one every 14 months).

Now, you have defined the terms in the same way as the Daily Show which I also brought up a few messages ago, again proving my point. If you only take a narrow view of "worked" being that no mass murders have occurred since passage, then yes you would be correct. However, mass murders are hardly a rational definition of "safety". It's impossible to suggest one if "safer" when the rate of violent crime is rising.

>That IMO, on itself is a justification to implement in gun control (not even talking about how strict). The related problem is more of a mental/ social mental switch with takes longer to take effect.
>
>Again see http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

Once again that's a narrow look as a justification of "safer". Homicide rates alone do not equal safety, violent crime is a much broader view. In addition, homicide rates were already declining as I also previously posted. It has also been previously pointed out that gun homicide rates have been declining in the US.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

>>Yes. Since I have done nothing to forego my constitutional rights I maintain them and choose to exercise them as I see fit. That's the essence of a right.
>
>Yep, and the real problem is the everyone twists it to their likeing, See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
>
>My take on it is that you (and with you, a lot of other gun addicts), take it out of context to your advantage:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22

The Bill of Rights enumerates individual rights. The 2nd has been adjudicated, most recently in DC v. Heller:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

If you want a history of the 2nd Amendment here is a thorough walkthrough.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html

>Question, would you consider a getto with hundreds teenagers carrying a gun a "Well organised militia"? I'd be very interested to hear your response on that.

Your question is irrelevant, see above.

>>>It does not have anything to do with logic, safety or statistics (Because they are against you anyways).
>
>>Now we're back to safety. Which is it?
>
>I think it was you bringing up safety and self defence as an argument that guns are needed. Are you now comming back on that statement and only play the 2nd amendment card?

"Need" is irrelevant, they are a right. My post titled "Why I need" addressed this.

>>
>>>Stop it Jake, you can't win this.
>>
>>I know, I live in California. The inevitable march from liberty is a reality of life here. That doesn't make my points any less valid, regardless of how one narrows the terms.
>
>Again, your take on liberty (freedom) is a myth. It does not exist, never existed and isn't even a goal in itself.
>See my tagline.

Tyranny arises from democracy and the assheap of history is overflowing with examples. The best I hope to accomplish is to enjoy the decline.
See my tagline. ;)