2nd Amendment

[aviator]

I understand where your coming from, on a lot of these cases.

All the things you listed as non-lethal have been noted for taking lifes on multiple occasions, but I see where you are going.
Self defense is situated on the moment of the incident, and the tool used in such incident is not an matter of debate. The right to self-defense, and defense of one's property is an unalienable right and having firearms for the respect isn't against the law by any means.
In respect of the Black Market comment... Any estimation of the black market is situated on just that. Estimations. You can't have any form of suited arguement in an black market debate until the damage is already done, and in the cases of the United States with something like the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994, we've got roughly three criminal study groups which have provided that the AWB does jackshit.

Yes, those non-lethal items may have taken lives, but on the whole they are there to stop the uses of deadly force. I understand the right to self defense, this can be easily achieved without a gun. If I was at home, having a gun or legalized guns would make the situation worse, gun vs gun? Hell no. The tool used is and should be the matter of debate, if some one punched you, would you pull out your AK 47 and kill them? That wouldn't be self defense. Had you have punched them back, perhaps breaking an arm, that is feasible. Same situation here: Some one starts beating you up, your stronger and better, you ended up killing the person accidently that's classed as self defense, had you pulled out a gun or tazer that is not allowed. To be honest even punching him to death isn't good enough, running or evading is your best bet.

The way you were brought up, I understand it is just a bit odd to someone in the U.K to hear that. I respect your decision of childhood.

And that can still some pretty nasty damage. Machetes alone were primarily used as military weapons up until the 60's. Hell the US Army Rangers still use them as secondary weapons for christ sake.

Yes these weapons can do nasty damage but not as much as a gun.

Yet do you have any example of how the government is going to magically take away 311,000,000+ guns in circulation?
Sure some may sell them back, but once you start taking things out of the Bill of Rights, primarily the 2nd and 4th Amendments, you'll begin shaking a bee hive for no good reason.

Well, this leads to a question. Why in such modern times, have they let this happen. Sure, making them illegal many should and hopefully good citizens, law abiding ones that is, sell them back. Those who don't would obviously face the court of justice facing a prison sentence. May I add, this 'Bill of Rights' seems quite odd. As for the shaking a bee hive for no good reason. How is saving the lives of, for example, 26 five year old children practically, don't fix what isn't broken, from what I can tell that is broken, past broken, beyond repair.