@alper

hunting or defense in wildlife (or even dangerous jobs) in many countries are valid reasons to apply and get a permit.

Requiring permits would be an infringement on the right to bear arms. So assuming the amendment is faithfully interpreted (it usually isnt) by current law that would require a new constitutional amendment.

That aside the issue with permits are many fold, but most importantly is they can put gun owners at legal risk since they allow police to search for everyone with a gun and then target people simply for owning a gun.. This is something we already see constantly (people being stopped for having a gun on them) so that would not be something I would support.

Do you have safety concerns and need your gun in Netherlands?

The guns I own are all at my american house due to limitations to my freedoms int he Netherlands sadly. But yes, yes I do have safety concerns personally. And frankly anyone can get mugged, knifed or killed so again, would be responsible for everyone to carry one if it were legal.

@freemo yes. An amendment shouldn't be a big deal since there are many already.
Tyranny argument is not realistic since 1)not just muskets anymore, huge asymmetry 2)state is more likely to use armed civilians as a fear tactic (personally witnessed in protests in Istanbul where armed "civilians" opposed (chased down with machetes and guns) the peaceful protestors and never got caught by the police (a miracle!)

@alper

Your arguments against armed populace to deter tyranny are in fact arguments for it.

1) In a world where weapons arent infringed then any weapon the govt is allowed on american soil and used against the populace then the populace is also allowed to buy. Ergo by default there is no asymetry.

Moreover even if we accepted the current state of affairs where the govt is allowed more power, the fact that the other side is better armed is **not** an argument for your side to dearm itself.. If anything its an argument to ensure you keep as much armament as you legally can muster as disarming only serves to make the asymetry worse, not better.

2) Using an armed populace as a fear tactic only works when people are used to be around armed people and thus associated it with fear. By arming the populace and encouraging people to carry their guns it exposes people to it and makes the fear angle less likely to be exploited.

@freemo does this suggest you are not at all concerned with the level of gun violence in the US? Because the laws change when there is a problem and many believe that there is. I cannot accept that Sandy hook is the price to pay. I'm able, some are and some aren't. They cannot fight. The whole point of civilization is that we protect our weakest. Half of America is armed to the teeth and specifically for a civil war. Outcomes are only getting worse.

@freemo plus no matter how righteous your cause may be the state has the monopoly on violence, at least legitimacy of it. Hence all oppressive govs want violent uprisings. They are weak against peaceful protests but the moment violence is in play the whole world lines up to support the "legitimate" violence. See recent history of Israel, Turkey, Russia, SA, UK, Spain, China etc.
And Rittenhouses will always walk free.

@alper

plus no matter how righteous your cause may be the state has the monopoly on violence, at least legitimacy of it. Hence all oppressive govs want violent uprisings. They are weak against peaceful protests but the moment violence is in play the whole world lines up to support the “legitimate” violence. See recent history of Israel, Turkey, Russia, SA, UK, Spain, China etc.

You keep talking about govt tyranny I keep talking about not being shot in your home. I pointed out in no uncertain terms that govt tyranny is not the most significant part of the equation for me or most americans who have guns. So not sure why you keep focusing on that.

Regardless i really dont care who sides with who in such a scenario. I care about being able to survive when people try to kill me

As for palestine, I garuntee you if they didnt have any guns and were limited to just home made rockets and bombs they would have been eliminated much much sooner.

And Rittenhouses will always walk free.

Good, people defending their life from a mob trying to kill them should walk free. I dont like Ritenhouse as a person, but legally it was the right decision.

@alper

does this suggest you are not at all concerned with the level of gun violence in the US?

I am concerned with the level of violence in the US, my concern has little to do with guns as guns largely play a role in reducing overall violence. The issue is the violence is very high and that should be addressed, but it has little to do with guns as part of that solution (other than just ensuring citizens are armed and responsible).

Because the laws change when there is a problem and many believe that there is.

Yes, laws do change, and people think there is a problem. I certainly wouldnt be surprised if laws change for the worse. When you have an uneducated populace like we do unfortunately they are easily manipulated to beleive this sort of stuff.

I cannot accept that Sandy hook is the price to pay.

Its not. We live in an age where anyone can 3d print or make a fully automatic gun in a few minutes. You literally cant take away access anymore. One guy with a 100$ welding kit showed on youtube how to make a fully automatic gun out of a throw away metal bed frame. Guns are simple, any fool could make one with nearly no resources

More over, sandy hook is an illusion of a problem that is the result of large numbers, not a gun problem.

I did the math on a post sometime back. You have two times greater chance of being struck by lightning in your lifetime than being killed in a school shooting. We are talking about things that are effectively non-existant when you consider the numbers. Moreover they wouldnt be prevented by taking away guns, as we have seen with people with pipebombs (which again are very trivial to make).

I’m able, some are and some aren’t. They cannot fight. The whole point of civilization is that we protect our weakest.

Protect them how? This makes no sense. If someone decides to kill you there is nothing a society can do to prevent that. There wont be a cop standing next to you when they come into your home to murder you and you will be long dead before a cop arrives… how exactly do you want to be protected? There is no actual way you can be.

Half of America is armed to the teeth and specifically for a civil war.

Well no, i know a lot of gun folks and not a single one of them are doing it because of a civil war… People arm themselves because its the responsible safe thing to do, full stop.

Outcomes are only getting worse.

Yes, all around the world people are getting more violent, even when they dont have guns… that is the problem, and why its respionsible to be armed.