>>>If you fail to miss the point I'm making here, that is not my problem. You can claim your rights as much as you want, but that does not make it right. As you said before, laws are subject to change and refinement, because it is understood that they are incomplete, ineffective or both. Not everything the law allows you to do, is morally right.
>
>>>BTW, you were the one starting the cherry picking, not me. The cherry picking always has been the political instrument of the NRA, by pointing to the few odd cases where a gun saved lives and ignore the order of magnitude lager number of cases where it took lives.
>>
>>Projection again. I wasn't the one who brought up Australia. I was the one who pointed you in the direction of their own statstics. I didn't narrowly define "safe".
>
>Australia is the example where gun laws did show to have an effect on gun-related deaths/injuries, something that has been denied here by numerous people.

Not by me.

>Also, it shows no (statistically significant) increase on homocides in general. The only thing that in Australia is significantly increasing is assault, but no explanation as of why.

>For each type of crime, the causes have to be determined and to be addressed. For gun related crimes, it is clear that gun control is helpful.

In the modern western world I agree this is true. History paints a different picture and only time will tell if we've actually entered a new world. In the "3rd world", however, gun control may reduce "gun related crimes" but only when one considers who is making the laws. ;)

>For other types of crimes other causes and other solutions have to be brought up. There is no indication whatsoever that more guns are the solution (which has been proposed by the NRA, how surprising).

Actually there are a number of studies about concealed carry which demonstrate exactly that. Granted the results could be because the criminals move to a more gun-controlling area, however, at the local level that's precisely what one wants to achieve.

>>>90% of Americans agree with that the gun control laws need to be tightened,
>
>>Incorrect. 90%, in one poll mind you, agreed with a question. When asked about the specific legislation that number dropped significantly. When the poll was broken down by state, the votes were in line. Again, I've posted this all before, you simply choose to ignore.
>
>Not seen it.

Message#1572418

>>>but I get the impression you do not feel obligated to agree upon the democratic principles to let that happen and cheer for any power to block that, with nothing more than the argument "its my right".
>>
>>We are a representative republic and the will of the people IS being followed.
>
>You really believe that? American politics are more controlled by forces that have not anything to with democracy, but rather power and money than anything else. The lobby industry is nowhere else as strong as in the US. The NRA being the point in case.

Again, we agree. It's in very isolated cases that the will of the people can still seem to be followed. This is one such case. For now...

>The whole problem is that it should be obvious that gun control (note I'm not talking about gun bans), is necessary to prevent a high number of cases where guns were people get hurt. Just insisting its your right and not willing to cooperate to actually do something about it is really beyond me, whether or not it is your right.

and we part ways. Do you feel the same regarding the Patriot Act? It too was implemented under the guise of providing more "safety" and it too tramples all over our constitutional rights. When we allow the dilution of one constitutional right through less than constitutional means, we open the door for all to be diluted.

>Its backwards. Guns don't belong in a modern society.

How do you reconcile this with your above statement? note I'm not talking about gun bans

>Do you really think it is wise to allow kids in a ghetto to walk around with guns? Isn't that asking for problems? Is that really that hard to understand and see?

You are referring to criminals.

>And is it really that dangerous to live in the US without a gun in the house?

I've mentioned this before so I'll try to paraphrase. Where you live is no guarantee of "safety". I prefer to have maximum options at my disposal. The ability to choose to live in a "safe" neighborhood or own a guard dog or a security system or a gated community or own a gun should all be available to a law abiding citizen. I would no sooner ban a breed of dog (see pit bull, rotweiller) than I would guns. Both in the hands of irresponsible owners are dangerous.

That said, I must reiterate, my primary concern with this is not my own safety. I've engaged in the "safety" discussion because you are bringing it up. My primary concern lies in liberty and the deterioration of my constitutional rights.

Consider: Is it really that dangerous to allow the police to tap your phone or search your home without a warrant? Is it really that dangerous to allow them to seize your property without even an arrest?

The correct answer is a resounding YES! These are dangerous precedents that have been and are being set and the consequences of precedents is that they have dangerous future implications which we cannot foresee.

>And would you not agree that in general a gun far more likely is going to hurt a friend rather than foo?

That's a simple matter of proximity. Your friends are around you vastly more often than a criminal looking to cause you harm. Your friends are also vastly less likely to want to cause you harm. Providing you've chosen your friends wisely of course. ;)

Your friends are more likely to drown in your pool or cut themselves with your knife for the same reason.