I don't agree with requiring permission to carry weaponry. I'm not overly fond of forbidding it.

Again, attention should be focused on feeling the need to require it. It's certainly possible to remove, and I suspect this will be easier without it in heavy proliferation.

1. it does not be lethal
2. It is required but not by and for everyone. Keeping people safe.
3. You got a way to stop an attacker besides being a coward? If take a knife, bullet, or anything for a brother or sister and I'd still fight but if it's at a distance I'll need something with range to take care of them.
4. You like people dying? I don't and I want to ensure safety.

Well EyeR,

It is your right to disagree and as such I respect it, however, I can tell you with certainty that it is not possible to completely remove the need any person may feel to carry a weapon. Because that need is influenced by many different factors, factors like the unpredictable nature of humans or the fact that no one knows what type of situation they will find themselves in daily for example. Then you have the folks who live by the saying "better safe than sorry" and like to be prepared for whatever situation they might find themselves in. Which may for them include carrying a weapon for defense. Besides, requiring folks to legally obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon in no way hinders the weapon's owner. It does however, help the police do their jobs by, making it easier for them to locate the weapon's owner in situations where it was used or stolen and that is a good thing

The "benefit" in this would be the fact that no-one knows it's there. If you're doing it right, no-one even knows it's a weapon. Until it's far too late to do anything about it. As a civillian this capacity deployable on demand can and does save lives, but more commonly simply shifts the injury ratio into a more favourable setting.

The glaringly obvious disadvantage is knowing I have that deployable and in operation in less than two seconds you're going to naturally want something on hand in case I wake up and decide the stupidity is just too much and I cannot allow it to breed and decide to do something to ensure the matter. Then I will adapt to that, causing you to adapt to me.. The only way to really win this game is to not play. Especially when it starts to get near destructive capacities measurable in tens of AU.

Weaponry generally should be frowned upon - we should be above it's use. There's no good ending down this path, however preventing it's impact can allow for satisfying the key condition placed forwards by Sun Tzu in his art of war doctrine - basically a how-to manual that's been relevant for thousands of years - as the ultimate condition of defeating the enemy: when they no longer have the will to fight. Demonstrated failure in the capacity to cause damage, repeatedly, will inspire overall lethergy at the entire concept. External attacks thusly should be of little concern. You shouldn't fear your neighbour enough to arm yourself against them - or why do you live there. Especially if granted the opportunity to build this from scratch, it should be possible to engineer an environment where weaponry isn't actually required. Conflict itself might take some time to erradicate - many generations - but there's nothing inherent with this to require things purposely built for harm. The simple possession of this should be a clear indicator of intent. The weaponry itself shouldn't be illegal IMHO, but it's lack does lead to many positive things - far more than the negatives. Clearly what would be illegal is the use of this weaponry in an offensive capacity, which again will be a lot more difficult if it is generally absented. Instances of uncontrolable rage or on the spot defence commonly feature what is to hand - having to actually procure things designed as weapons clearly signifies intent.

Removing the incentive to not arm yourself against your neighbour is a lot easier if they are similarly unarmed - in a universal agreement of benign intent. Something you would be insane to consider deep space habitation without. It shouldn't be so much of a legal requirement as a social stygmata. Whatever situation people are placed into, weaponry should really be the last thing they are thinking not the first. Destructive capacity is rediculously easy with "mispurposement", it doesn't require any encouragement and it would be madness to do so. Locating weapon presence, let alone use will be insanely simple - again, sensor network. If you're seriously thinking about supporting an environment on that scale you will literally require them everywhere. And measuring everthing. Already a ½ decent CCTV rig or set of headgear can monitor your heart rate from a distance simply by watching the pressure cause fluxuations, and this isn't particularly high tech. Population migrations across that sort of scale will require counterballast or thrust to compensate the redistribution of weight, and this will be constantly adjusting. People will be watched. It doesn't need to concern itself with who you are, generally, but it does need a pretty good idea of various metadata which until certain conditions are met - like you've just opened an access panel, or put a hole in it changing the volumetric capacity of whatever is behind unexpectedly, just used a flathead screwdriver to unscrew someone's jugular - can remain entirely anonymous up until the point that this information actually becomes relevant. AI can already learn simple patterns, object recognition, and predict with startling accuracy in some cases the next frames of footage from but a few example frames. By the time this is possible - by my estimate, about 2060 but ofc to get there would be very dangerous and everyone's lives would be at risk because I'm not actually capable of tangible planning so it's the nine thousand year lifting from the floor option - AI will be significantly advanced, and most sensors will actually have one or more layers embedded. It's incredibly likely that should an attack ever take place, a few dozen frames before hand, the AI will have EMT and security inbound.

EyeR, we all know that when you finally get so fed up with the rest of us that you decide to kill us all you won't be using guns or conventional weapons.

I find it more likely you will create a computer virus, and possibly one or two physical viruses, maybe some antibiotic-resistant bacteria for good measure, that specifically target the stupid, ignorant, and people who argue with you.

Face it, that is TOTALLY what you would do.

See? Guns are not as much as a worry, when bio and chemical warfare can be done by anyone and all because you are smart don't make you right. Now what's your real issue with guns EyeR and scarab?

Hey EyeR,

Shut up with the empty threats already, unless you like contradicting yourself and looking silly when no one takes them seriously as I am certain no one has. Your talk about wiping out humans provides incentive to carry weapons and use weapons. Yet, you say we should be above their use, how do you expect people to ever be comfortable enough to not carry weapons when you threaten to wipe out humanity!!? The threats seem quite counter productive to your argument and definitely would not make people willing to go unarmed! Surely you considered this before opening your mouth right? Oh, wait, no you did not and it shows, no, weaponry should not be frowned upon. Your naive idea that it should and that we should be above it's use however, should as it leaves us with either limited options to defend ourselves or none at all! So? The ending you speak of only applies when those weapons are misused. Who do you think you are bull shitting with this nonsense? You are suggesting that more positives than negatives come out of a situation where you can not defend yourself. Give me one just one historical example in which good came out of a group of people NOT being able to defend themselves? No, the use of weaponry in an offensive nature would not be illegal. Because there are these things called pre-emptive strikes which can often help a group defend themselves from attack. By removing their enemy's ability to attack them and no one has any right to take that ability away from anyone.

A universal agreement of benign intent huh? What's to stop someone from agreeing to such a thing and then causing hostilities anyway? Nothing is what so keep your dangerously naive suggestions to yourself. Do yourself a huge favor and familarize yourself with human nature pronto before making anymore suggestions. Because so far the only stupidity I have come across is the suggestions you have made. That totally ignore some very obvious and vital points that need to be taken into account.

@Phicksur,

EyeR would do nothing of the sort, he is a talker not a doer, otherwise he would have done something by now. He hopes to intimidate people by claiming to be able to do this and that. Someone who is actually about doing what they say they can do. Do not advertise what they intend to do they just do it!

With someone making threats of wiping out humanity with bio weapons, he'll guns are the least of our worries. On asgardia I'd be worried someone put a poison gas on the vents, or a nerve has. Litteraly more dangerous than a loaded gun. Or someone opening an airlock remotely, some making bombs out of spare parts, terrorist brought and kills people, and worst of all you think we are stupid, we aren't we know and see the world what it really is. Nazis banned guns so jews couldn't fight back, they got guns from soldiers in retaliation but weren't trained so they didn't do well. A mass murder happened about 8 years ago here in the U.S. and it was a poisonous gas, multiple bombs. Killed around 100 people. In space no way to vent it. A gun you can get waay from, has not so much, breaking station? No way out. So choose use a weapon and kill the threat or "be above stupid people" and let hundred to thousands to die. Honestly I'd "stupid" people seem to know what we are saying. Do you EyeR? Because all I see is shit flying out of your mouth, even if you did something your the dangerous person then with nerve gas and all. You would make guns the least of our worries.

There are no "empty threats" - I wouldn't intend on such actions, and what I do have I wouldn't advertise. I'd just use. It was merely an example provided to apply the logical cause and effect from. It doesn't matter who you start with, why, where, or what weaponry - the end result is the same. This isn't an incentive to carry weapons, it's an incentive to stop being so primitive in your thinking because it only leads to one inevitable place. This doesn't limit options for defense, it merely limits options for attack. Which is the whole point of not having the weaponry in the first place. Weapons being misused is as much of a concern as weapons being used. As a weapon is by definition a tool of attack. As previously covered multiple times. Just like lacking tools of attack does not imply lacking defence.

Gas in the vents would likely be detected by the molecules stuck to the outside of the container becoming detached long before it's released - Again. Millions and millions of sensors will be required to maintain "normality". Should it actually make it into the system, it will be re-directed through to processing. Suggesting this wouldn't be accountable for suggests that you have not even lent this enough thought to deal with the excess moisture in the air from the organics. Less irrational fear and more research.

Again with "bombs out of spare parts" - the second the system detects a chemical mix it doesn't like the look of, the hunt is on, and it already knows where it is. Remotely opening the airlock is an amusing concept - clearly born of intellectual thought - why would that even be possible? what possible use would there be to include for this in the design specification? I suggest in fact the opposite is likely to be more true. At least for anyone sane. A sane person would have it so the airlock will fail to open on failure to equalise pressure between the inner and outer. At the hardware level.

I don't think you're all stupid - I wait until you've proven it first. Everyone starts on a level playing field and their actions and words dictate the rest.

EyeR,

Yes they are empty threats, you do not intend to act upon them and that makes them hollow! Me being primitive in my way of thinking!!? You clearly have no idea what you are saying. How could you when you know nothing about me? Someone threatening to wipe out humanity is an incentive to carry and use weapons. I am a member of humanity after all and I quite like the idea of living to see the next day. So, I would gladly take measures in order to try and ensure that I survive. No, they were not examples, they were threats plain and simple. They were contrary to what you preached so, there is no chance in hell that they were examples. No, my way of thinking does not lead to the inevitable place you speak of. But, since you did not bother to take the time to find out what has inspired my way of thought, you would not and could not know.

Yes, banning the use of weapons in an offensive manner does limit a group's options for defending themselves. If the defensive force is smaller and the only way for them to have a chance at winning is to strike first. But, their ability to use weapons in an offensive nature is banned by law. Their only chance at winning has been taken away from them. Listen, you are not as wise as you seem to believe, I can see through the bs so, you can try all you like but, you will never succeed in urinating on my head and convincing me that it is rain! Weapons are used for both defending and attacking, you can not limit one with out limiting the other! You claim not to think others are morons, but then try and feed me this load of crap! Way to expose the bs you try and feed people!

I notice that you have not even tried to present one example of good coming from a situation where a group did not have weapons to defend themselves with I wonder why? Actually, no, I do not wonder why you can't and that is why. The citizens of Asgardia should by all means be allowed to carry weapons. No good reason can be presented as to why they should not have that right. Not by you or anyone else.

That is bull and you know it, your arguments alone make it unmistakably clear. Just how unintelligent you think people are compared to yourself. So, do everyone a favor and stop trying to bs folks. The folks on this forum and outside of it are more intelligent than you give them credit for being

They are not empty threats. I have not claimed I am intending for such a thing, therefore this cannot be a threat. As previoulsy mentioned, it was a hypothetical example to demonstrate some basic principles of cause and effect that you seem to repreatedly demonstrate problems with - like the repeated demonstrated failure to pay attention to any relevent details or conduct any plausible research to support your incredibly facil positions on most subjects. This, along with the whole "we need weapons because I'm scared" philosophy is entirely conducive to "primitive thinking" - it's only really one stage above "I'm hungry", and I sincerely doubt you keep enough food to last you the rest of your life, which you would do should be so determined to survive as you so claim.

As consitently demonstrated, the actual issue is it's my handle attached to the post.

Yes, the entiure mentality of trying to fight fire with fire just leads to an uncontrollable inferno. It is inevitable. You build a tool and it's only a matter of time before someone uses it - this might be the entire reason I didn't open source the circular saw blade launcher, and similarly amusing - but stupid - devices. There's no requirement to be actively attempting to make the world slightly less safe. It'd be sensible to ban the posession of such a device(as it would be already here where I live) especially as the projectiles lose stability rapidly after leaving the launcher, but focus would be more sensible to attribute towards why you would want one. For me it was the "engineering challenge", and it was fun. Beyond that I have no purpose the original was disassembled and I've not built another since I was 14, which was some time ago now. This can be accounted for by giving people places to do stupid things, and have them made as safe as realistically possible - it can never be made totally safe, but it can be made so only their lives are at risk, and if they are willing to take this risk then it is their life to do so with.

The presence of weaponry in your day to day life should really be an indication that something somewhere is very very wrong. Mass residence in space won't work with "very very wrong". Banning it's use in offensive capacity does not limit defensive options. It only limits options for responding with offensive force, as a weapon regardless of how it is applied is a tool of offense, in it's very nature and design. As previously covered multiple times. We will not be absent the capacity for offensive force whilst absent weaponry, as offensive force is not something particularly difficult to provide. Thusly the concentration towards removing the ability to do so with tools tailored to the purpose, and with it the incentive for it's use.

If the defensive force is smaller the only option is not first strike - which would be a prolific violation of the general concept of Asgardia, and previously covered - the sensible option is to be well prepared. There's no realistical way - and you would realise this if you'd take the time to be bothered to understand orbital mechanics - that alignment for docking is possible if we don't want it to happen. Even if that is somehow magically forced, even a larger force cannot get through natural chokepoints like airlocks, the attempt of which is pretty easily engineered to certainly result in death, injury, or capture - or any combination of the three - fast enough to be able to overwhelm.

There's loads of examples where lacking a weapon doesn't impair situations, they are that common nobody notices them. So few situations actually require wepaonry as a response. What is far more numerous in example would be the examples of where possessing the weaponry has directly lead to the problems existence in the first place.

Some folks are certainly more intelligent that I would personally credit, I have no problems accepting this as fact. However, you are certainly not one of them.

A sane person would have it so the airlock will fail to open on failure to equalise pressure between the inner and outer. At the hardware level.

Actually, there are some reasons for explosive decompression.

Runaway fires, for example, consuming the oxygen anyway, why not just vent it all and prevent structural damage or warping? Lesser of two evils.

Needless to say, this would only be possible in non-residential areas.

No, you don't want "explosive decompression" to sort out fires, you want something like Halon.

Ofc organics don't like this much - but there's ways and means of solving this, and it's not going to be in the air they're breathing that long, it'll be cycled off the second the fire is out - and if that air is changed fast enough that's commonly in less than a second.

And if there's no people, why would it require life support?

There is a difference between non-residential and 'no people'.

Maintenance areas, for example. Waste treatment (usually requires some oxygen) is another.

Anywhere we might have to go to fix something should be able to have air pumped in so we don't have to work in suits everywhere.

Okay listen the shut fuck up eyeR I have done my best for studies and knowledge because I've wanted to see space go further beyond sol, I would not do anything to fuck that up but leave us defenseless is killing us, limiting the use of weapons, saying only a few pass and are aloud to have guns, not a problem. What is primitive and needs changed is you thinking your way is right. Almost all of us defending our right conceal a weapon agree in it and have good points on why. Now if you wanna make certain parts a gun free zone go ahead but not all areas will be. Another primitive thing, that your doing. Hearing gun and assuming people will die and running like a coward. 1. Guns are not always lethal. 2. People making asgardia in the future will put big open areas for social activity such as maybe an open kind of park but this huge area a problem could go down and a sniper maybe needed to take it out as ground team pins it spot or stops,oh I don't know maybe a hostage situation? Which can take place with bare hands and when they are shot from a distance and not expecting it and die barely any problems occurs. 3. I don't why you think we will be constantly safe but we won't. Someone or something will come after us. 4. As worried as I am about someone using a lethal gun to shoot Windows exposing us to space we will have air lock doors than seal soon as the window breaks. 5. If your smart you will look at all events that could and can happen instead of expecting it to go perfect. Engineering it won't cause perfection because there is always a flaw. No stop trying to act as if your the super intelligent being, your not. And like Brandon and phickur I'm also part of humanity, I don't want to be killed in my sleep, trying live a normal life, and defiantly not because some dumbass like yourself think weapons are unneeded maybe not all but some are required. Now shut the hell up and stop acting like you know best, we dont but we want to make sure are safe before anything happens. We admit it.