Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 08:39 UTC

Re: Civilian conceal carry of weapons  

Yes, weapons are for offense. You might lay claim to the use of this offensive capacity for defensive purposes but the undeniable fact remains it operates entirely on offensive principles. Defense on the other hand renders weaponry ineffective.

There's no such thing as "mitigated weaponry". Clearly. The existence of things that render weapons ineffective are figments of my imagination.That's why MgAl3 foam backed by a non-newtonian fluid will eat the forces from a .45 - which converts to dust on impact - whilst providing incredibly little force transfer past the fluid. It's called "mitigation". If you want to stop more than a .45, you use slightly thicker than a cm of foam. Your knife is pretty ineffective to such things, too. If you'd spend ½ a second thinking instead of ranting about irrational fears then you might be able to see solutions.

I'm not saying make a weapon less of a weapon. I'm saying you don't need weaponry. I'm saying no matter what you build, I'll build something more destructive - this is a game entirely best avoided and the only way to truely win is to not play.

The absence of weaponry is heavily impacting on the feeling of requiring it. Without expectation of encountering it, what excuses exist for possession of? As your entire argument appears to revolve around return of the same, you can do that without.

You can use space, if you'd again stop to think rather than rant you'd realise the rediculousness of that entire premise. Just as rediculous as the premise that violence is the only solution to violence. Fire fighting with fire isn't something subscribed to by any sane firefighter.

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 12:22 UTC

I gotta agree with EyeR here. Weapons are offensive, period. You can use a weapon to defend yourself only by attacking your attacker, thus making them offensive weapons (recall that intent doesn't define a weapon, its behavior does).

I think it is becoming more clear that Asgardia is not just going to be a space station as defined by the Constitution. It is going to be more than that. It is a collective, an idea, perhaps even a belief in and of itself where people believe that equality and peace are behaviors that must be promoted and protected. Because of this, we need to think of the rights of citizens as not only those in space, but also those who are living in other countries on Earth. Those countries might have more or less restrictive laws than are being suggested here, and should be taken into account.

To that end, I do believe that individuals should be allowed to legally carry weapons to attack anyone who might attack them. Bear in mind that criminals will carry weapons whether they are legal or not, so by limiting law-abiding citizens you inadvertently strengthening criminals. Limits should be placed for the mentally ill, those with criminal histories, and the types of weapons one could carry (rocket launchers are not personal defense weapons). To counter the limitations, penalties should be increased against those individuals who are NOT similarly armed, to take into account the idea that some persons won't want to carry guns for self defense, and preying upon those weaker than oneself should carry a harsher penalty.

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 12:57 UTC

Bear in mind that Asgardian law, when such exists, will only gain jurisdiction on Asgardian territory - citizens in other countries are bound by those rules regardless.

To that end, I don't think people should be carrying weaponry, as this is a tool of destruction, of harm. A symbol of such within itself. There are ofc plenty of things that can be repurposed as weaponry, should the need arise - but focus should be on removing the need not adding to it.

  Updated  on Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 13:12 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: typo

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 13:16 UTC

Bear in mind that Asgardian law, when such exists, will only gain jurisdiction on Asgardian territory - citizens in other countries are bound by those rules regardless.

As an American, I am bound by American law regardless of where my feet happen to be. When I visit other countries, their laws are in addition to my own, with the most restrictive laws taking precedence.

Because of this, if Asgardia prevents the use of firearms, weapons, or other similar implements, those laws would likely be the most restrictive and, therefore, supersede the laws of any country a Citizen should find itself within. Also, as Asgardia has vowed not to involve itself in the inner workings of other nations, they cannot PROTECT Citizens when they are not in their home country, requiring that Citizens be able to protect themselves. It is for this reason that I suggest that laws regarding the use of weaponry be as liberal as possible, because of how broadly they would apply.

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 13:34 UTC

Actually, American law doesn't apply outside American borders. Plenty of people leave America every day to do things that would be unlawful on those shores. Even to Americans - what applies is the law for where they are. As demonstrated by the people who work in places like gitmo and the fact they get to come home and not be prosecuted for what they did whilst not on American soil.

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 13:56 UTC

Actually, American law doesn't apply outside American borders. Plenty of people leave America every day to do things that would be unlawful on those shores. Even to Americans - what applies is the law for where they are. As demonstrated by the people who work in places like gitmo and the fact they get to come home and not be prosecuted for what they did whilst not on American soil.

Oh, it is still against the law, but there is the problem with lack of evidence, or witnesses, or willingness to prosecute.

Also, military law is different than civilian law, so the rules are different for armed forces personnel.

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 14:48 UTC

Brandon's right there is no scientific explanation for defence and offense, all because someone thinks a weapon is a offence doesn't mean they shouldn't be corrected. Weapons are for both for a REASON and it's not people to attack eachother. Because how do you defend of a attacker with a knife if you have a deployable baton? Use yours, but only because he's going to hurt you and you have a right to fight back. There is no only attack. Scarab a speeding car may hurt but id rather be hit by a train then take a bear litteraly your trying make it as if Australians are complete badasses and survivalist. Your not, your ancestors yes. You live in a modern time where it's easy to take on animals, badasses are men and women who know how to fight and fight for the right thing, survivalist survives with his surrounds with no civilization. I'm no survivalist, but I could, I been trained and taught but don't mean I am one. I've taken on so much in life it's not funny. And yet I'm no survivalist or badass. So stop faking.

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 15:00 UTC

Phickur you have a good point, and point of view thank you, you and Brandon get it.

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 15:12 UTC

What makes you think I am faking? Have i given the impression that I drink lattes in cosmopolitan Melbourne? Another assumption perhaps? Do you want to go for strike three?

For the record, I grew up in what you would call "the outback". Here, you aren't "trained and taught" survival skills - you live them. When the nearest hospital to treat a snake bite is 4 hours drive away, you have to become acutely aware of you surroundings and how to manage risk.

Which leads me to another reason why I don't like the idea of carrying concealed weapons - it predisposes people's thinking to only dealing with a situation after it has become threatening as opposed to identifying and avoiding a dangerous situations.

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 16:10 UTC

Sorry Phicksur,

But you are wrong, you do not always have to attack an attacker with a weapon to defend yourself. Doing so is only one option you have, the other is to block the incoming blows. Also, the fact that you also have a weapon can deter any would be attackers, which is another example of a weapon providing defense. Hell, the whole nature of weapons is defensive! The idea behind their conception is to defend yourself from others who may have weapons and ill intent! I am quite surprised you seem not to be aware of somethings so obvious. So, regardless of what you and EyeR think weapons are not solely for offense. In light of the facts I whole heartedly support citizens being able to carry weapons

  Updated  on Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 16:17 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 16:10 UTC

Oh, it is still against the law

Citation required. Granted, I'm not entirely a "legal expert" - but I understand concepts like "jurisdiction".

And military law is different. But then again, even if this wasn't covered here, somone signed the Geneva convention treaties.

And with regards to carrying weaponry, I'm never far from things that can be repurposed as weaponry. I don't particularly feel the requirement to carry anything specifically purposed to cause harm. So I can even clear security checkpoints. The ethics here are largely because of the probabilty of occuring others with various weaponry, absent that factor why should I feel the requirements? I don't actually need to hurt them - that's optional enjoyment - I just need to render their attempts to attack futile, preferably damaging themselves as way of discouragement to further attempts.

  Updated  on Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 16:19 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: Additional data

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 16:14 UTC

Citation required. Granted, I'm not entirely a "legal expert" - but I understand concepts like "jurisdiction".

Here is the one that springs to mind for me, with my background in business:

https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/foreign-corrupt-practices-act

I am sure there are others, but will admit that I am not a legal scholar. You may be correct that not all laws apply outside their jurisdiction, but I also know of people being sued, in US civil court, for behavior overseas.

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 16:20 UTC

It 503's me

You don't have permission to access "http://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/foreign-corrupt-practices-act" on this server. Reference #18.5b476768.1490717988.2d33531c

Care to cite an act/paragraph?

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 16:23 UTC

deleted

  Updated  on May 25, 17 / Can 05, 01 18:46 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: leaving asgardia

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 16:47 UTC

@Scarbs,

Actually, no it does not, carrying a weapon and having the sense to avoid dangerous situations are not mutually exclusive both can be done simultaneously. So again I say let the citizens carry concealed weapons if they wish. Just have them be required to obtain a permit to do so