Jan 30, 17 / Pis 02, 01 16:32 UTC

Re: Should the Asgardian Police carry and use firearms or any other lethal weapons?  

Weapons can be difficult to remove. It would possibly concern you the range of injuries I could cause with a single sheet of A4 paper. Let alone what I can build.

The solution isn't to attempt to remove or prohibit weaponry - instead to provide an environment wherin their use doesn't make sense and would therefore remain unconsidered.

Feb 3, 17 / Pis 06, 01 05:07 UTC

i believe that due to the nature in space, that firearms should be stored for an absolute emergency, mainly for show of force. Now thinking long term, if anyone was to get access to and or make a weapon that at least allow them to carry tasers or rubber bullets, its not a choice about if they harm or kill the person, that is something only they can deal with at the time, its about either protecting everyone for the person or protecting the station itself.

Feb 4, 17 / Pis 07, 01 01:23 UTC

Realistically fights will occure, occasional making of weapons .. possibly groups of friends that form and have differences.

Having un-armed police i believe is extreamly stupid. Each officer should carry O/C spray and tazers. No guns. Guns should only ever be introduced after and indoubt we will, see one thats however been built or whatever surface.

I stand firm in my opinion having of the above. Two officers lets say are alerted to a fight with 10-15 people. The first and most critical thing the first on seen needs to do is defuse and secure the envirment of danger. -With no weapons they will probablg get beaten up. A burst spray from two oc/pepper spray bottles will immediately naturlize the fighting (that stuff HURTS) and of course for extream cases always good to know you hàve a tazer there if things go backm It will ensure the confidence of the officers to do the job properly

Feb 4, 17 / Pis 07, 01 15:22 UTC

It's not the sort of place for fighting, ideally. Kind of contrary to several founding ethics. There's always going to be differences, so few of them are actually worth fighting over however. Recognition of this simple fact can prevent a lot. Not intentionally giving people unreasonable stimulous should account for almost all the rest. Commonly the best way to solve a problem is to not allow it to become a problem in the first place. If attempting to simply replicate Earth up there, then we might as well give up now, because we've already failed. One would have to question why someone that disagrees so strongly with Asgardian ethics that it would result in violence would of bothered signing up in the first place, let alone sticking around long enough to gain habitation.

Guns inside a pressurised hull isn't the smartest move possible to be made. Pepper spray/mace and tasers, although easily countered/mitigated are more sensible options, assuming some form of gravity is present and all the infrastructure well earthed and capable of dissipating 22,000V»55,000V DC without frying the equipments or nearby bystanders. As you have accurately identified, responders to a scene should engage in difusion techniques. Neutralisation of combatants should only become an option when no other is present. In a fight between 10-15 people, then these people are unlikely to work together, they are already fighting. The officers, working together, don't attempt to engage all of them at once, isolate. Divide and conquer. If the officers are worried about getting beaten up then they signed up for the wrong job and should think harder about what it is they should want to do and why. Arming them doens't inspire confidence, it's just another tool to be abused introduced into the equasion. Them being competent inspires confidence to do the job properly.

Feb 4, 17 / Pis 07, 01 20:11 UTC

I believe that there should be ammunition restrictions, and that each form of ammunition should be graded as "civilian", "law enforcement" or "military". That way, no civilian would have access to lethal ammunition, and people would still be able to have guns :) Homemade ammunition would be highly illegal.

  Last edited by:  Shawn Crawford (Asgardian)  on Feb 4, 17 / Pis 07, 01 20:12 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Feb 4, 17 / Pis 07, 01 20:45 UTC

Since we won't have a police force until we manager to get to space, I think that firearms couldn't be a choice, guns+being in the vacuum of space=disaster. I think the police should have non-lethal weapons, like tasers and heavy duty ones in case of need (like shotguns with electric slugs)

Feb 5, 17 / Pis 08, 01 15:31 UTC

I think security should be in place so no firearms can be aboard Asgardia, period. The police won't require them. If someone gets crazy with a knife, a well trained officer with a baton will be enough to subdue the culprit. I don't think tasers or the like should be allowed either. They can cause heart attacks or severe nerve damage.

Feb 5, 17 / Pis 08, 01 17:40 UTC

So how would you propose to stop someone like me simply building a firearm? I can do this with common household items, before factoring in production equipments like 3D printers.

Much better, IMHO, to focus on providing a lack of desire and or excuses to utilise. Then people shouldn't bother with acquiring, via whatever means. Attack the cause not the symptoms.

Feb 5, 17 / Pis 08, 01 23:17 UTC

"So how would you propose to stop someone like me simply building a firearm?"

I think a good goal would be to screen individuals who would even have the thought processes to think of making a firearm. All people should be given a psychological evaluation before being allowed on to Asgardia anyway. Too much to go wrong to let any potentially unstable individuals aboard.

Feb 6, 17 / Pis 09, 01 02:22 UTC

Anyone can think to make a firearm. Having the skills to actually pull it off isn't entirely rare, either. A good knowlege of physics and or chemistry should do.

The key is to not place them in a position where they feel like this would be a good thing to be doing. Humans are inherently unstable, it's a builtin defect. A stable environment minimalises this. Other factors minimise this further...

By the time we'd actually get around to being able to appropriate for our citizens - via any means - then there's lots of requirement for change. Lots of things will change around people, and they will change with it as they adapt to their environment and expand to their new horizons.

Feb 7, 17 / Pis 10, 01 18:06 UTC

Ok, first off having guns on Asgardia will not necessarily equal disaster, second, people can and have developed immunities to pepper spray or they simply become used to it causing it to no longer be effective, third, any peace keeping force employed on Asgardia that is not armed will fail! Because they will not be ready to face threats from those who may not share the same concerns regarding whether they and we for that matter live or die due to some horrific accident/intentional attack!, fourth prohibition has shown that making something illegal actually makes it more desirable. So, making it highly illegal to make homemade ammunition would be counterproductive to the idea of keeping lethal rounds out of the hands of the public because they will make lethal rounds!

I suggest that the police and citizens of Asgardia be allowed to own guns that fire non lethal rounds only and if anyone is found guilty of modifying their weapons to fire lethal rounds or firing lethal rounds. Their citizenship be revoked and them returned to their native country on Earth

Speak for yourself Eyer, I am stable and I am certain there are others who also consider themselves as being stable

  Updated  on Feb 7, 17 / Pis 10, 01 18:30 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Feb 8, 17 / Pis 11, 01 00:43 UTC

Guns should be on the station for absolute emergencies only. In these kind of emergencies I list mainly possible invasion and/or rampage in Asgardia initiated by an Asgardian or outsider. However, I strengthen my point saying it again, for absolute emergencies only. Other than that, Asgardian peacekeepers, as I like to call them, should only be carrying stunning or concussive weaponry. Pepper spray and its variants are a possibility.

We are building a peaceful haven for science and knowledge though. And as it might sound utopistic, in that kind of state lethal weaponry should not be used, but it would be straight up stupidity to not have any for absolute emergencies. We are still from the generation which knows about firearms and their absolute stopping power quite well, so if we were facing such threat described above, it would be quite possible our opposition would be carrying such weaponry, and we should be responding to that kind of an attack with our own to minimize the losses. After the conflict it should be publicly addressed we never intended to use this kind of weaponry, but we really did not have a choice. Or if we do at that time, that wipes my point straight clean, and we live in a different world.

EyeR did have an fascinating point in the following quote in the comments above: "The solution isn't to attempt to remove or prohibit weaponry - instead to provide an environment wherein their use doesn't make sense and would therefore remain unconsidered." This should be our goal, but I still am saying firearms should be safekept in a stash for the need arises.

This philosophy would of course need extreme education and clarification for the peacekeepers about deciding which kind of force to use, but it is possible to achieve.

  • S
  Last edited by:  Aleksi Laakkonen (Asgardian)  on Feb 8, 17 / Pis 11, 01 00:46 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Feb 8, 17 / Pis 11, 01 05:46 UTC

Guns on a station isn't entirely sensible. To assume you actually manage to hit the target and then to assume they slow the projectile enough to not create an explosive decompression, or the inner is resistive enough to cope then richochet is equally unacceptable. There are better low tech solutions, let alone high tech.

Pepperspray etc, again, as long as there's gravity or some replication thereof. Elseways that could get funny to watch.

Absolute emergencies can be handled intelligently. If there's weaponry that could desperately be required and it isn't on hand it's a little useless. To pretend the human organism wasn't easily manually exploitable with physical access any tool is a weapon if you hold it right. A hammer to the kneecap never killed anyone, and tends to stop them quite nicely. There's more graceful methods however.

But ultimately focus should remain on general peaceful use of space and persuit of knowlege. Errant behaviours will largely become antiquanted concepts and the ones that really cannot help themselves shall surely not last incredibly long, and be vastly outnumbered. With nowhere to run. It really will be a different world. There should really be no logical reason to attack our own, or any others, and such limited to those that are in someway defective and likely better served with some form of assistance with that than a healthy dose of physical pain.

Feb 19, 17 / Pis 22, 01 04:54 UTC

Bean bags rounds will not penetrate the hull of any craft but they will stop an assailant! Pepper spray does not work on everyone, in fact using it would be pointless. The body will eventually adapt and render pepper spray useless, meaning it would constantly have to be made stronger and stronger to maintain it's effectiveness! Using guns designed specifically to fire non lethal rounds such as bean bags would work just fine

Feb 21, 17 / Pis 24, 01 15:48 UTC

Firearms designed not to penetrate the hull of the vessel in which they are used should be issued to security forces, and non-lethal.

It should be noted that damned near anything can be turned into a weapon, or projectile. We are a very creative and inventive species and can make an explosion, easily, with household chemicals and a spark. All you need is a chamber and a projectile and you have, essentially, a firearm.

Because of this, it is unreasonable to presume that the removal of weapons will result in a peaceful society. Arming all citizens would be equally foolish to believe would produce peace. Only by removing REASONS to fight can peace be achieved, which is Utopian and not very practical. Thus, it should be presumed that somewhere in the middle should be the most peaceful place: those comfortable and responsible with being armed are armed, the remainder are not, and citizens should always feel like they have other options available to them to resolve conflicts without resorting to violence.