So long as there are those who do evil I'd rather have a gun in my hand then 911 on the phone and a cop a mile away. Barbaric people are out there in spades, but they aren't the responsible citizens who just want to protect their family.

Whether you want to believe it or not there are people who will kill you for your shoes. They might have a gun, or a knife, or a big stick, but it won't matter if you have nothing to defend yourself with. England still has high violent crime rates despite their gun bans. Should we take the guns away from good people when we know we can't take them away from the bad ones? That's what would be toxic to society.

Why does it need to be lethal force, though? When we're all armed with lethal force, it's just going to lead to people getting killed in the long run. Bad guys or good guys.

The whole gun debate will lose all merit as soon as someone invents a reliable, non-lethal personnel supressant.

Maybe, but I'll still want to take my AR-15 out for target shooting as well as my 9mm. I'll still want to shoot clay pigons with my 12 guage. I'll still want to go shoot ground squarls with my 22 rifle. Oh and don't forget about hunting. Regardless of if there is some kind of 100% effective non-lethal anti bad guy device people in the US will still want to hunt for dee, elk, bear, duck, goose, etc. etc. etc...

You don't have the right to take those rights away from us.

Guns of all kinds are tools. If you banned all tools that can do harm we wouldn't have cars to drive, saws to cut, or knives to chop.

Not necessarily. Not all Americans care about liberty, egalitarianism, nor freedom. However; it is something well-known and strongly intertwined in our education system. This is something Russians didn't have. We have 800 years of history rooted from England and then expanded further telling us that liberalism (of the classic variety) is what we should strive for. Hence, a revolt for actual liberty is a reactionary process to force imposed by a state on one's individual rights or property. The Russians on the otherhand just transferred soveriegnty of a nation from one ideological group to another, with a fundamental restructure of how the government works. In the case of Americans the sovereignty lies with the people and is allocated to the government, and if the government decides to take that power by force, they will be met with force. There is no otherway, because force can't be fought with laws, when the entity which uses force makes the laws.

This is distinct from a white supremacist, because he's looking to use force on others which is not reactionary, but an initiation of force.

Children of course don't have the same freedoms or facilities to own a weapon, and nobody implied that they should. It's the same reason why nobody is implying that children should be able to drink alcohol nor that they should drive cars. They are not capable of sound decisions, as their minds are still developing. Of course, there was a time when children did bring their rifles to school, and while there were accidents it was an infinitessimally small percentage.

That's a bad example, yet I see it all the time.

Ban cars, society will collapse.
Ban fully automatic and hi-cap weapons, hunters will have to reload slightly more often.

Also, there are heavy restrictions with the use of cars. Speed limits, having to have lessons and a test before you get a licence etc. Why can't restrictions be imposed on how people use guns?

Fully automatic weapons are banned.

i wasnt gonna comment on this thread but then i watched the video. and you have to agree with piers. and i mean how can you even take this jones guy seriously? claiming piers "fled" to america? and then he wants to challege piers in a boxing fight to prove that he isnt "man enough"

perhaps, but "retard" is a word, and we're not allowed to use it where it doesn't apply.  this insistence that wanting to limit gun ownership is 'unconstitutional" is a riot becuase the constitution was made in a time when men needed to hunt, where law enforcement barely existed, and when america was under threat of invasion and it was advised that every family had a weapon to protect themselves. 

Newsflash:  We don't live in that world anymore.  While I understand some people will cling to their rights even if they're not needed (and certainly not basic human rights, like the right to chose, or the right to eat, or the right to not be raped silly in a ditch), there comes a time when you really have to understand that the world has changed.  We've grown as a culture and as a race. We don't abide by biblical laws anymore, or we'd be stoning people for wearing the wrong clothes. 

I'm from Canada, and as a person who HAS the right to a gun, I find it hilarious to see your backwards nation screaming about the right to own a tool for killing.  Because that's the problem here.  The issue isn't guns, the issue is people who care more about owning and collecting guns than the actual implications of these devices, which are, at their core, tools for killing.  That's what a gun is for:  killing things.  When I hear about someone who fetishizes a gun or makes a big hooplah out of it, I don't see someone who just wants to protect their family, I see someone clinging to archaic beliefs who cares more about their own rights and entitlements than the betterment of the whole.  Capitalists, Republicans, Traditionalists, they're all code for "I'm selfish and care more about myself than others."  

Guns aren't the problem.  americans who fetishize guns are the problem.

so you go fight your battle.  You go massage your revolver barrel and sleep with it at night.  me?  I'll be busy helping others in a nation that isn't gun crazy.  

Another good example is that mass stabbing they had in China recently. 22 stabbed, no fatalities.