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.