>>>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. 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. 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).
>
>>>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.
>
>
>>>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.
>
>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. Its backwards. Guns don't belong in a modern society.
>
>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?
>
>And is it really that dangerous to live in the US without a gun in the house?
>And would you not agree that in general a gun far more likely is going to hurt a friend rather than foo?

Keep in mind there are federal and state laws and in general, it is up to each state to determine many laws. Having written that, there are some CRAZY state laws when it comes to guns:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/16/the-6-craziest-state-gun-laws/

So it is clear that there needs to be greater uniformity on gun laws in some areas (18 and older and background checks and a wait specifically for purchases) and the whole "who can carry" concealed or open, and under what circumstances as well.

I believe in gun rights, however, I also believe in responsible gun rights (see paragraph above).