Attacking the cause more than the symptoms is commonly a very senisble method of operating, and actually, removing the reasons is for the larger number practical, and almost assuredly required to actually make long term habitation of space a viable concept within itself. You can't have people bickering about what is ultimately trivial trinkets. Needs must be met in order to prevent the likes of hoarding and exploitation of what will otherwise become locally scarce. For example, someone storing up a facilities water supply in order to meter it back to the others as a revenue generation method. You really don't want to start getting into senarios where things like toilet paper start full blown micro wars.

A lot of "problems" can be traced back to money, or specifically greed. To realistically and safely entertain the notion of providing for our population in the stars it's almost certain the sheer mass of materials required will not be lifted from the floor and instead harvested from the stars. To be able to consider constructions in a reasonable timeframe then exponential harvesting methods will require deployment and they will rapidly outproduce not only our ability to actually use that much resource, but outproduce that of the species ability to consume.

As the raw resources transform into infrastructure, and then goods, this opens up for remarkably utopian concepts like abundance to the scale that anything required will already be there and anything desired can be provided. This should eliminate most cause for things like theft, deception, fraud, robbery, etc whilst also tackling concepts like poverty. Resons for conflict should be few, and rarely sensibly result in violence. With the environment and more physical causes tended to, what remains to eliminate is the social causes, over enough time this should be sufficiently adjustable in the larger number of cases.

I think that one of the main problems of taking guns to a space nation would be safety in delivery. Imagine a faulty gun going off in a shuttle. This could puncture the hull and kill those in the shuttle. If this happened in the early stages of colonization, this could destroy Asgardia's reputation and slow immigration. I think a somewhat safer yet still effective replacement would be bean bag guns. They don't puncture skin, but can easily bring someone down and knock the wind out of them.

Due to the potential damage firearms could cause on a spacecraft I would say no. Firearms on a spacecraft pose a serious threat to the safety of everyone on the scientific side. A single hole in the spacecraft could lead to depressurization and death of many if not all citizens aboard.

In my country, police are not routinely armed. In my opinion, law enforcement should not be armed. This is because law enforcement should keep the peace and firearms would only result in disturbance of the peace or even exacerbate disturbances of the peace. So no, I think law enforcement should be unarmed.

You see LeoBrazil, despite our differences on other issues, I am in total agreement with you on this. An unecessary risk in a high risk environment.

I believe that the prohibition of use of firearms by the law enforcers would be stupid. Whilst in a perfect society they would not be needed, these are people, and to simply give blind trust to everyone would be very stupid.

Most likely, at some point in the future Asgardia will come under some form of threat from a terrorist organisation about how "only (God, Allah, etc) should live in the sky!" However, the use of said firearms in anything other than an emergency should be restricted. As for non lethal weapons, I have two words:

 LASER TASERS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolaser

Tasers seem a better solution, as they are *less* lethal.

If guns are used, why not use tranquilizers darts instead of live ammunition? 

My two cents: Classic firearms in a space enviroment are an invitation for desaster. Due to the nature of humans, we need moderately armed police forces. Tranq or Tazer guns are feasible. Also dart/flechette guns and gas weapons when dealing with heavily armed culprits. 

No weapons or firearms. 

Где есть оружие, там не безопасно. Сотрудник милиции тоже человек, который может иметь психологический срыв. И это опасно. Можно спорить об этом бесконечно, но в открытый космос, оружие к хорошему не приведет.

**Mod Edit** English Translation - Where there is a weapon, there is not safe. A policeman is also a person who can have a psychological breakdown. And it's dangerous. You can argue about this endlessly, but in open space, weapons to good will not.

*Note* Please make sure when using the forums to copy/paste the English translation below your comment in your native language. This ensures that members interested in reading your post are able to understand it. Thank you for understanding.
zahira, 07/06/2017, 13:26 UTC

The police should have options and they should be prepared.  There can be policies and procedures that can dictate the appropriate escalation of force.  For example, police would be forbidden to use lethal force if someone's life was not in danger.  However, this policy should be written by people with experience in law enforcement.  It is easy for those who have never been a police officer to say what the police should do from the safety of their homes instead of out on the streets.

Because of (well its a space nation) and abuse of comand will happen why not keep guns but use non leathal ammo such as ruber bullets or a salt wepon such as here https://www.saltsupply.com

In short you need somthing but killing might not be the answer.

I am personally against all lethal weapons.. 

However we DO need to be able to protect ourselves.. there is,and always will be, crime.. i think the use of tasers would be the best idea. But where the military, high security or space exploration is concerned - each person should have a licence to carry a lethal weapon.

Also, any weapons should have some kind of lock on them before they can be used.. whether its fingerprint or even a pin code activation. Then your weapon could only be used by yourself

I am personally agai st all lethal weapons.. 

However we DO need to be able to protect ourselves.. there is,and always will be, crime.. i think the use of tasers would be the best idea. But where the military, high security or space exploration is concerned - each person should have a licence to carry a lethal weapon.

Also, any weapons should have some kind of lock on them before they can be used.. whether its fingerprint or even a pin code activation. Then your weapon could only be used by yourself

As an active guard, lethal weapons are rarely necessary. Perhaps nonlethal directed energy weapons or stun batons, et all, as the criminals can and will most likely be armed if they are planning on committing crimes. Directed energy weapons can be used to nonlethally disable a target while minimizing damage to the target and nearby infrastructure or bystanders.