I clicked on this because I watched it in my social class today, and I could not stop laughing. If the American wasn't being an idiot, and actually arguing his point intellectually, It may have made his side seem better. MY interpretation on what the British guy (look I don't know their names, nor do I care, but you understand who I'm talking about) was that we wasn't trying to support BANISHMENT of ALL guns. Only Semi-automatic weapons (Uzi's, AK's, etc) which are not needed for protection OR sport and hunting.
I live in Canada, which last I heard has the most Guns per people (My social teacher's words, bring it up to him) despite most* people not having guns. Only the Farmers, Hunters, and "Kill for sport" people tend to have them (No, not including gangs, I'm talking in general). Though I'm sure they have them, it's not necessary to shoot down a thief with an Ak-47, when a pistol would probably be a cheaper option anyway.
I'm not saying the American's side is stupid. I'm saying HE is stupid, and his argument was stupid, and I'm not saying the British guy is Jesus or anything either. The British guy was at least a smart prick, picking his battles well, the American was prepared, but his argument had so many flaws it was just unbearable. I think gun's can be necessary, but if what I understood is correct, I don't see the point in a Semi-Automatic weapon unless you need to wipe down a row of people, which you probably won't need for protection.