I've been talking about regulating the industry and civilians for AGES and the problem of guns outside the US and a lot of other things. If you haven't been reading, then you don't even know my argument which means you shouldn't try to discuss it with me AT ALL.

Knox you think they give a rat's ass about your argument? You want to take their right away to have a gun so they can kill somebody if they dare to break in their house. Never mind climbing out the window and calling the cops on a cell phone nope they want to kill someone how can you expect to win an argument with that mentality?

sitting in the living room, waiting for the opportunity to shoot someone without going to jail, very slim chances.

Gross exaggerations! Nothing that has been said here from either side has even remotely reflected on anyone eagerly sitting around wanting to kill somebody and just because the reserve the right to.
Continue to prove that neither of you really know anything about the culture or lifestyles of individuals that own firearms for personal protection.

It seems that the thought of people taking on responsibility to the next level, to the degree of defending themselves in the case that their lives were threatened scares you... that simple. Where, along the line does it warrant criticism to not choose to be a victim to an unlikely, but not impossible home invasion? Your arguments simply evolve out of pacifist defeatism and concluded by ignorant stereotyping.

And you know this how??? Frankly your getting ridiculous with this "Industry" stuff.

I really wish I had more to add to this thread, but the more I read over everything the more I realize that this is a no-win situation for anyone who has chosen to participate.

The only thing that nags at me a bit is the stereotyping freshchops speaks of, as well as some (two in particular) that feel a need to speak out against things they clearly know little-to-nothing about...

In my neck of the woods, guns have saved more lives than they have needlessly taken. I feel very comfortable in saying that...and like freshchops also mentioned once before (as I have as well)...I can only speak for the place I consider home.

Maybe things are really violent where Knox lives (so she says...). So violent in fact that she chooses to stay there all the while talking shit about/stereotyping other people and places.

And yet I haven't really read the endorsement of a regional alternative to the national right to bare arms by anyone. I guess that 'need to speak out against things they clearly know little-to-nothing about' is quite ubiquitous.

And we should all recognize that there's often a kernel of truth in all stereotypes. Stereotypes maybe je jure inadmissible as far as political correctness is concerned but let's not be fooled for the sake of rhetoric.

Fair enough, but I personally happen to be one of those that doesn't feel safe judging a whole cornfield off of one kernel.

Depends on the kernel, doesn't it.

It shouldn't...not when ya consider the millions of others. It's possible ya just met, or even worse, "read" about a bad one.

So it's a matter of optimism or pessimism, then? Place more emphasis on the kernel that confirms your own bias than that which does not. Is that what 'speaking for the place' means? Perhaps that's what's so 'no-win' about this, speaking for places and experiences as though that's the end-all-be-all authentic authority.

It's more of an issue of a glass half full...it shouldn't be viewed as positive or negative as there is plenty of room for both.

And yes, I agree....Perhaps there are places where limiting the distribution of guns might be a step in a right direction (even if I still feel as if positive results will mostly prove fruitless)...but I, again, am speaking from the perspective of a male that has not experienced too much in the way of violence, living in central GA. It happens, sure...but for the most part I do, and have felt....very safe. + I know many people that own guns. Shit, I know people that LOVE guns....I just think it's absurd when someone that isn't even from here (+ has likely experienced little if any of this place) feels as if they know why we love the things we love or believe the things we believe. People own guns for different reasons. People believe things for very different reasons. It's not always for a sense of false security or fear, even if SOMETIMES it is. Southern USA is much more culturally diverse than what most outsiders seem to realize.

Whatever happened with trying to base opinions on facts? Are people really that detached from what goes on outside their own countries? Is that the guy that's constantly talking about strippers? My short-term memory is awful.

I agree that people should try and base opinions of fact, however most (including myself sometimes) forget to do so. I def. at the very least try and stay out of subjects I know little to nothing about....

Also, the world would be a better place if more people realized what might be a fact here, per se, isn't nec. a fact there...and vice versa.

I haven't tried to pretend I remotely understand what's like to love guns or have any knowledge about any specific region or culture. I've been saying increasing regulations is necessary for the greater good, and that is the only rational, effective measure to be taken.

While I don't claim to understand the things you love you believe (like you say) don't forget the fact that I'm also saying NONE of us understands really what it feels like to be unfortunate enough to be living in a very violent area controlled by criminal/terrorism organisations in which people live in poverty, fear and constant REAL threat.

I know that better than you do because I'm closer to it.

Now the point is whether your priorities are being protective over your so-called "gun culture" for you or the people you know or actually manage to save human lives.

I do understand your point, and even though I fail to agree with ya on everything..I can appreciate the fact that you have an interest in seeing lives saved. My mindset toward humanity (and clearly this subject) just happens to be very different.

I know "saving some live is better than none" makes sense, but it's just not reality. Reality IS people kill people...+ not guns. A gun is just a tool, and a powerful as well as (sometimes...) necessary one at that. I still feel as, despite all this "industry regulation" jazz, that people will get there hands on them if they want them...no matter what. We live in a society to where people will sell guns to their foes, quite literally. Where there is a desire for product, considering the worlds disgusting love for money...product will always be made available. + while I don't own a gun, I can see why..considering the violent nature of humans in general...some might feel the need to for whatever reason, and I think they should have that right. Of course innocent people will die sometimes (+ I DO think it's sad)...but that goes with almost anything. When the less than decent people can obtain guns, the decent should have means of defending themselves...just like the hunter should have a right to hunt his own food...just like the skeet shooter should be allowed to enjoy his hobby.

This is just my opinion, and it has nothing to do with the fact that I have a passing interest in Charlie Manson or live in the south or don't happen to dislike America or anything like that.

Again, there are so many pros and cons that this debate can not be won by either side.

culture of war
culture of fear
culture of death

someone profits everytime someone dies for no reason.

You're getting much too poetic about it.

The industry wouldn't be anything if PEOPLE didn't want guns to begin with. Profit, no profit...whatever.

Maybe it's the industry's fault people want to buy guns to begin with? They sell fear and people buy guns? People kill the industry profits? Sometimes...sure. But smart people know people kill anyways. Industry or no industry, people are just being sold what is already reality. Most people that own guns seldom, if EVER actually shoot them. These people tend to just keep 'em stored away in case they are ever needed...and sometimes, they are.

i don't mean to be arrogant or anything but i've studied publicity and worked in it for many years. This hasn't got much to do with the subject but the truth is people want what an industry makes them want.

the first golden rule of marketing/publicity strategy has always been:
to make people think they desperately need something they do not need.

and i guess we've already talked about how people kill anyway, but how that is a bit harder to do without a gun so THAT PART IS COVERED don't go back there.

But, the problem is that there are guns? So what do we do now, being that taking them away is not an option?

And as far as this publicity thing, I can see this tactic being used in shit that isn't needed...like "buy this car to feel younger", "smoke these cigs to feel whatever".....'course this type of stuff is (usually) bullshit...

But violence is not. It never has been.

You don't know half of the tactics.

How is it that gradually taking them away and minimising their presence is not an option? some countries/places have done it, it worked well and murder rates went down.

so now that's a fact, it happened, it's possible, cannot be ignored.

There you go again, insulting via assuming.

What about the places where crime rates went DOWN when it was made legal to carry concealed firearms? It's a fact, you can't ignore it.

we're talking about death, not crime in general.

If you noticed I didn't post in here for over two weeks as I just avoided this thread and when I finally decided to read it again there you were with your same argument about protecting your property so what am I supposed to think? Then of course I'm stereotyping you and everybody who owns a gun. Then the great ole argument to end all argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Guns Kill people yes they're used by people but it's the guns that do the killing. If all these gangbangers had to fight with their fists half of them would be scared shitless and run the other way cause they might get hurt. Shit though give me a gun and I can walk right up to somebody and end it all in one pull of a trigger.

There is a way over time to stop it all no guns that's all let's see 5.5 people per 100,000 that means if my math isn't failing me 55 people per million times roughly 300 million people comes out to 16,500 people per year senselessly killed. Sure seems like a worthwhile number to me to get rid of guns completely. But dam I have a right to own a weapon cause the constitution says so and I'll be dammed it you're taking my right away. The real joke in the whole thing is that a lot of these folks who would never give up that right are the same jokers that want to overturn Roe vs. Wade because to them that's senseless killing. For the record I'm for overturning
Roe vs. Wade as many people are more than willing to adopt these unwanted fetuses.

i love you chicka.

Oh, I fully realized this.

Sic' 'em, freshchops.

OK, so what you're saying is that because I continue to validate the legitimacy of owning a firearm for home protection.... you revert to dumbing down the reality to abstract stereotyping?

Everything else you followed with is typical rhetoric and completely unrelated to everything I said, but worth it if you made Knox feel better I guess.

You have stupped to the ultimate low by stereotyping. All y'all have are stats. I know that y'all are not too dense to understand that stats can be misleading, yet you cling to them desperately to detest your disgust towards the common and responsible gunowner (who also happen to make up the majority of gun owners all together).

I hate the fact that there are armed "gangbangers" which really account for almost all of the firearms murders, at least in the U.S. They do represent the epidemic of any gun control problems if ever there was one. The reality is that there are so many contributing factors behind the violence and murders that the end result of murders by firearms just the very tip of the iceberg. Demographics and drug epidemics are what dictates the levels of crime in the areas that account for significant statistics for murders. I live right outside of the city with the highest murder rate in the U.S., New Orleans. I know intimately the routines and scenarios of murders. It is chronicled daily through my news outlets. My best friend is a parole offer in New Orleans, and the the worst areas of New Orleans (including the 8th ward). I know all about it. I know about how the reality of the violence comes to be reality. I had a friend who was a rapper and a drug dealer.... and watched his life lead up to getting murdered on a street corner.

It seems that the noble argument would focus thought on how to address issues at the root of the culture that account for all of the crime. Drugs, lack of education, unemployment, etc. The problem is, those epidemics are so far out of reach from turning around and for the most part, the people themselves aren't inclined to improve themselves. Guns are the laymans scape goat. They are the evil that the Government and the "industry" would have everyone address as the convenient culprit. Criminals kill people, not the guns alone.

What could be addressed however is more aggressive law enforcement. Even as simple as more strict punishment for crimes of violence. They could go as aggressive as a no-tolerance to crime of violence and if you commit a crime with a weapon, a 20 year mandatory sentence, regardless. The threat of going away for even getting caught with an illegal gun or caught with a gun while on probation or with a record and being put away for 20 years would scare the shit out potential abusers. The problem is, and I can tell you from the perspective of New Orleans is that it's a failed judicial system. And I mean FAILED on the most epic proportion. It is terribly common for them to bring in a criminal on murder charges, they get out on bail in the mean time due to a "no-snitch policy" practiced by these communities and the suspects go right out and murder people again (gun or no gun). It happens ALL of the time. This is just a small example how negligent the system is to properly punish and take the criminals off the streets.

While guns are used in the majority of murders, many murders are done by stabbings and beatings all the same. I think if guns didn't exist in the world, then unarguably we'd see less murders in all.... that's a given but not a solution, and not even a remote possibility. The problem is that the gangbangers are the products of failed upbringing and a government neglected drug industry.

The simple fact is that there are two different worlds in regards to owning firearms. One accounts for the stats you elude to while the other gets miscued into the argument out of ignorance and convenience. One, making up the majority of gun sales, is the common household owning firearms for protection. The other is illegally owned guns by small clumps of concentrated regions of crime.

... but, to criticize the common, household gunowner as eager murders to-be, especially sharing the same argument's murder statistics is just silly.

Stats are great when they are hand selected to support ones point (Knox)... but I really wonder if you bothered to do any research on stats that would contradict your theories aside from just feverously seeking stats to support your claims? That should be interesting. Look at the murder and crime stats of Washington D.C., a completely gun free city. How does it differ from others.

Point being, this thread is just riddled with carefully crafted stats, readily available by anti-gun lobiest with subtle and not so subtle stereotyping and bigotry towards others who share contradictory views, through lifelong experiences. This, while completely dismissing numerous experiences that myself and others have shared that contradict the views of the gun-free enthusiast.

Don't stereotype me, bro.

there isnt an anti-gun lobby

ha! p, you are a personality-less tool, but I ain't mad at ya'..... humor away.

Does whining a lot constitute a personality for you? Or is that just your personality?

I believe that a gun should only belong to a man who wears only the finest loafers, and drives a car from some european peninsula of excellence. Men such as these are the only ones fit to carry the mighty guns of death.