Because it doesn't fit the goal of the op. ed piece, which is what we are talking about.

If anything, it says that mandated arming of large numbers of citizens (conscription), and mandatory use of such weapons, leads to a higher number of mass killings.

That's a different conversation than the mandated disarming of large numbers of citizens.

"Because it doesn't fit the goal of the op. ed piece"

Translation: it wouldn't fit the political agenda of the op. ed piece.

I'm glad that you agree with me that your definition is not relevant to the op.ed piece or to this entire thread.

That is quite clearly untrue, and you are no longer debating in an honest manner (if you ever were).

Buh-bye.

If only more kibitzers were so polite.