One problem indeed with the gun control 'side' of this debate is the underemphasis of personal defense. I find it absurd that people are locked up for a long time when they are forced to defend themselves and/or their families (by other means too, and not just guns!).

However, the problem with these kinds of issues is that the 'sides' usually become polarized and the truth ends up being kind of in the middle. The problem with the other side is the overemphasis on the need of lethal force, and the level of lethal force. Of course I believe in the right to own a gun, and its use to defend yourself; but no one needs a heavy machine gun or an uzi to do so, or to hunt. Likewise, where a gun might have been involved (and perhaps consequently a lethal injury), things like stun guns, pepper spray, or even martial arts training could be just as effective with many people (and perhaps be more effective for others); and using the threat of lethal force on your attacker could force him to defend himself with lethal force at the same time.

So yes I believe in personal defense (and there are too many ridiculous laws against that), but I don't always think a firearm is necessary. I believe the intent behind the second amendment was about defense against tyranny rather than personal defense against criminals.