Mar 27, 17 / Tau 02, 01 22:49 UTC

Re: Civilian conceal carry of weapons  

Sure, let them carry firearms it can be done without the risk of a depressurization event. There are non lethal rounds in existence and I am reasonably sure that, anyone in their right mind is not. Going to be shooting off rounds that could possibly cause hull breaches, kill folks including themselves, or worse destroy the entire station. Why everyone overlooks these alternative rounds in favor of lethal ammunition I have no clue. But, if Asgardia were to become a reality in the next three years. I sure as hell would not want to live aboard a space station with any of you folks. Nothing personal really, but, you have all shown the inability to adapt your ways of thinking to the dangers the new environment would present and that can get folks killed!

Actually EyeR,

Weapons are for both defense and offense

  Updated  on Mar 27, 17 / Tau 02, 01 22:59 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Mar 27, 17 / Tau 02, 01 23:30 UTC

Hi Brandon7,

The reason why most people's minds turn to lethal rounds over non-lethal rounds when people talk about guns is threefold: Lethal ammunition is cheap, abundant and effective.

Regardless of the ammunition / weapon, I am not overly keen on the idea of a nervous, untrained person walking around with something tucked in their coat on the very remote chance that a situation emerges where they can attempt to be a hero. Now perhaps if the person concerned was a Navy SEAL, Army Ranger or SAS Commando, I would feel a bit more comfortable about a concealed carry since they are fully trained and experienced in combat and the use of various weaponry. However, as for the guy that squeezes off a few rounds in the controlled environment of a gun range at paper targets once a month - leave it in the gun safe at home please.

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 00:37 UTC

Hello Scarbs,

That maybe but, in the enclosed confines of a space station in an environment as dangerous as space, lethal ammunition is far too dangerous to make use of. I have no reservations whatsoever concerning a non military trained person carrying a concealed weapon. Using one is not exactly rocket science after all, besides, only allowing certain folks to carry weapon creates a dependency on those folks and that is not a good idea. If those folks are somehow neutralized the people they protect are screwed

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 03:55 UTC

For fuck sakes Brandon7 gets it, thank you! Scarab your right though most think lethal when guns come up, but litteraly there is now a cheap and effective gun that's non lethal. Check it out it's a type of salt gun forgot the name. But scarab litteraly if putting all weapons away meant the better of humanity and no more violence between our "race" then I'll gladly put all weapons down but we could get attacked by alien race who could see a chance of defenseless human planet and over take us. Let me know when everyone puts their b.s. to the side and unify I'll forget guns then.

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 03:59 UTC

Also Brandon did you say asgardia will be done in 3 years? I thought it was 5-10! Wow I need to get more prepared. I wasn't expecting that soon like that I was going to join the navy for military training and study. Damn

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 04:05 UTC

Hello Boonejohn,

No, I did not, I simply gave an example

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 04:16 UTC

Logic would suggest that an alien race that has developed the technology for interstellar travel would most likely also have developed personal defence / military offence technology far beyond our own capabilities. In other words, if an intelligent alien species ever comes to Earth, I sure hope that they are friendly and aren't in desperate need for our water, our manganese... or our teeth - I'm pretty sure that there would be little to nothing that we could do to stop them.

Why can't the beginning of the end of the "b.s." start with Asgardia? What's stopping us as a nation unifying and making a decision to put the weapons away and spend time, effort and resources on more useful pursuits (like medical research, advanced vacuum propulsion systems, high efficiency energy generation, quantum computing, and so on)? If we are serious about this, it has to start somewhere. Why not us?

And before you start accusing me of being scared again (remember... Australian - we stare death in the eyes twice before breakfast) I am one of the first to say we need a plan and ability to defend Asgardia from those that would want to take what we may have for themselves. By "those", I mean other humans, because, as a species, we do have an undeniable history of being selfish, stupid and scared when it comes to change. By "defense", I mean something a lot more sophisticated than people with projectile weapons - that's sooo stone age.

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 05:01 UTC

Actually EyeR, Weapons are for both defense and offense

No. Weapons are for offense. You might think you're using the weapon defensively, but the only thing it can cause is harm and destruction and the most "common defense" applied by weaponry is either fear of this harm - something not incredibly clever to rely upon, especially if using easily mitigated weaponry - or to cause the harm and or destruction before it occurs to you.

A good defense deals with the attack, making the attempt futile. A better one uses the attacking force to provide the defense. Blunt application of force is primitive at best.

Absented weaponry generally it's usage should be remarkably difficult - and along with it eliminate any associated problems. It's generalised absence should provide for the incentive for most to not actually require to wander around with it needlessly increasing the probability that it will be used indiscriminately or even accidently.

There's more than plenty of things able to be "mispurposed" to cause harm and destruction so there's really no requirement to specifically think along the lines of weaponry as an independant thing intended to solely cause harm. The capacity to cause destruction isn't a direction of thought that should actually require any particular effort instead the effort should be placed into avoiding the damages and destruction.

The "peaceful use of space" quite likely doesn't involve "weaponry" in any sane definition.

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 05:03 UTC

Scarab dude it domtnmatter you live in Australia, other places have worse creatures just not put into one region, litteraly done research America has worse bears, Germany of any dogs species, Africa bugs (trust me you don't want to there when it comes to bugs, terrifying), Brazil in predators, so dude your not making anyone convinced your rough all because you live in Australia. Secondly your freaking out of someone having a fun when here in ametAmerica and has been proven, our bears can tear you a pet without trying when in Australia your are just fast and have shaped class but take much effort to take limbs and do to serious damage to a human. In the U.S., Russia, England, Canada, and etc we deal with worse shit. You live in a region where alot is scarce and creatures evolved to kill one another not humans, and so happens humans are a target. Stop using your region as an excuse or toughness. I have a scare in the back of my head from purposely stepping in the way of a metal garden, cracking my skull open and lucky to be alive. Did that happen to you? I bet not. Animals are easy. We literally fight bears here and Russia do we brag? No. So stop.

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 05:04 UTC

Brandon thank you for clearing that up and thank God now I kmow I got time.

  Last edited by:  Boone Johnson (Asgardian)  on Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 05:04 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 05:09 UTC

Weapons will always be used whether you like It or not scarab and dude literal have you not seen what Russia revealed about aliens? They are tying to tell the world their here and some aren't peaceful and have weapons just like us. Don't believe me? Look up "Russia alien reveals"

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 06:04 UTC

Oh dear Boonejohn. You have just fallen into the trap of one of my favourite sayings - never ASSUME: you just make an ASS out of U and ME.

Cracked your head open did you? Diddums. I've literally taken a speding car to the face. Broke both wrists, a bunch of ribs and crushed a vertebrae and managed to "walk it off". So yes, forgive me if I think as a culture Australians are a little tougher than the average bear.

Obvoiusly we wont agree on this issue, no matter how much we go back and forth. But you know what: that's OK. I respect your view and your right to express it, no matter how misguided I think it to be.

  Updated  on Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 09:11 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 06:53 UTC

No EyeR,

They are for both defense and offense, if I use a knife to DEFEND myself from an attacker. That means the knife was ABLE to be used for DEFENDING against attack and that's what defense is! Which clearly and irrefutably shows that weapons are for both defense and offense. It does not matter if you cause the attacker physical harm with the weapon. That does not make you fending off their attack any less of a DEFENSIVE measure. Dude, mitigated weaponry!!? There is no such thing as mitigated weaponry, just stop and thinking about it for a minute. To mitigate means to lessen whatever is being mitigated and a weapon is well, a weapon. So, what you are saying is to make a weapon less of a weapon, which is by all means impossible because there aren't degrees of weaponry. If something is a weapon it is a weapon period and you can not make it less of one.

The absence of weaponry does not have squat to do with whether or not there is incentive to require it! That is decided by other factors, factors like, does your opponent have weapons?, are you intending to do something that requires you to have a weapon?, do you find yourself in a position of having to fend off an attack?, and so on. So? No one said anything regarding thinking of weapons as intended solely to cause harm. So, stop with the irrelevent bull and as far as the peaceful use of space goes. There is no such thing, you can not use space in any way shape or form. You can colonize, explore, and study it but, you can not use space. There is nothing to use, that is why we call it space and not resources. Space can be studied, colonized, and explored peacefully just not on a permanent basis. So, people should get used to the idea because, not everyone exploring space will be peace loving and regardless of our intent. If we run into trouble not of our own making. We will have to resort to violence to defend ourselves it is that simple and when we do. We will have failed the false idea of the peaceful use of space even though we had no choice!


Because we as a species are not there yet that is why

  Updated  on Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 08:22 UTC, Total number of edits: 3 times

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 08:10 UTC

@Brandon7 I understand your concern about the right of defense and the reasons for carrying a weapon, and you're more than welcome to express your own opinion about those matters. However, everyone here is entitled to do the same, and it implies some members may disagree with you. The goal of the conversation is to understand the perception of everyone included in order to formulate a unified conclusion/solution. Personal attacks do not accomplish anything, and are not allowed in the forums or groups of Asgardia. Thank you for your patience.

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 08:17 UTC

Ok Zahira,

But honestly I fail to see a personal attack anywhere in my post. Sure, I did tell EyeR to stop trying to sound scientific and smart for everyone. But, the intent was not to imply that he is somehow impaired. The intent was to inform him that trying too hard often backfires. Also, when I use all caps it is not for screaming, rather the intent is to place emphasis on the word in caps

Zahira please delete this reply thanks

  Updated  on Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 08:20 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time