Hey, boone, might want to edit your post. Seems a bit angry.

Never post angry.

I'm at work, I will later and thank you for letting me know. I'll edit it later

Cut the crap EyeR,

What was it you said to that one poster, that you could destroy him and put him face to face with things that would challenge his belief that he is at the top of the food chain. Guess what Mr. Smart guy? Those are threats, they are not hypothetical examples just plain unadulterated threats! As I have said before you are not as wise as you think you are. In fact, it is my opinion that you have things completely upside down regarding how smart you are compared to others. When someone presents you with a point you can not refute. You begin talking about things that have no relevance to the topic being discussed. You also throw in a small bit of truth to make your bs seem believable and others are realizing it. No, I have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to see through your bs, expose it, and destroy it and you do not like it as if I care. I do not need to conduct research to know when a person is speaking bull shit so why would I? Ummm, dude, that is impossible for me right now financially, actually it's just plain impossible everything goes bad eventually and has to be thrown away. Who said anything about fighting fire with fire? Which actually is a valid fire fighting technique used to combat wildfires! So? You can not place the blame on the weapon's creater for it being used to hurt others. That aleviates the user of his/her responsibilty for having used the weapon in such a manner. The creator did not force the wielder to use said weapon, they did so of their own will and as such are solely responsible for any injury, deaths, and destruction caused.

For someone who claims not to be human you sure do think like one. No, no it should not, some people purposely collect weapons for various reasons and often times they have nothing to do with anything being wrong in their daily lives. Like myself for example I have two swords currently one battle ready one not and plan to obtain others. Does that mean something is wrong in my daily life? No it does not, it just means that I find swords well made swords that is to be objects of great beauty. Just like some find guns to be objects of great beauty, you have zero clue regarding anything you speak about. I guess you have never heard the saying "the best defense is a good offense" which quite clearly demonstrates the link between the two!

You mean well prepared to get their asses kicked? You see, the thing is a smaller force hardly ever defeats a larger force because time is always against them. A large enough force will eventually overwhelm a smaller one it is just a matter of time. Just how many access points do you think there will be to the inside of Asgardia just one? That would be plain lunancy, there will be multiple and a smaller force would have to divide it's forces to cover them all. Meaning an invading force would actually stand a pretty good chance of getting in.

Name one, just one example of a group that was/is defensless lead to something good for anyone other than the conquerors? Believe whatever floats your boat, it is your right after all. Just do not expect me to believe that bull shit as well, I know better.

So, in the end I think that all Asgardians of sound mind should be allowed to and required to carry a weapon that fires non lethal rounds considering the danger a lethal round poses

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.

How about you make me? Chance favours the prepared, I suggest you prepare well. I would advise something heavier than level three bodyarmour. For an added bonus I personally won't go for anything designed to be a weapon to prove a point.

If you have truely done your best, then attempt to do your best to demonstrate this. Think. Don't rant, think. Then respond. If you truely think I am wrong, then convince me of this - Logic works well here, as does evidence and generally making sense.

First the concept of weapons themselves. The requirement for weaponry is a primitive concept, the feelings resulting in it's desired presence - fear(which is learned) - one of the more primitive operators. When intelligence couldn't solve the problem an application of brute force achieving the end. Weaponry is custom designed to cause damage, harm and or death. Regardless of it's usage intent or outcome. The lack of an offensive capacity does not leave you in any way defenceless, it simply leaves you with reduced options of attack. The options for defence all still remain open. It is more mature to utilise these, than it is to exhibit the precise same "problematic" behaviours. Fearing one man might have a weapon isn't solved by having 173,000+ carrying a weapon.

Now if you wanna make certain parts a gun free zone go ahead but not all areas will be.

Firearms discharge in a pressurised containment facility isn't the smartest move on the board. You can achieve checkmate in less moves losing less pieces. Any sensible space-based facility will generally be a firearms free zone. I'm confident I spec to withstand anything anyone has hope of carrying, or even strapping to a light mech, but I still don't think it's clever for an environment to exist where firearms discharge is a realistical possibilty. If you avoid the common presence of weaponry, it's remarkably simple to build a security system that reacts to weaponry. By security system I do not mean something that flashes lights, makes noises, or takes pictures - I mean something that will stop them, rapidly. And it will natively only taget those intending to harm others.

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.

I assume very little, you may - or may not as evidence suggests - noticed a common trend of application of research, thought, and logical conclusion. Like promoting an arms race in outer space would be a direct violation of the outer space treaty.

1. Even "non-lethal weapons" are frequently lethal, lots of things can be intentionally misused to become lethal. Regardless of lethality, the fact that a weapon was felt to be required for use would ideally require some serious adressing. Especially when other options are presentable.
2. A sniper is going to be equally effective with or without concealed carry, or presence of general weaponry. Unless you just so happen to be similarly trained, but to better skill, at that particular place, at that particular time, and you just so happen to be concealing a sniper rifle. Ofc, the sensor grid that keeps the air quality at a minimal level should of picked up the cordite well before the clip ended up in the rifle, if not the general shape of the device, postural positions etc should of triggered response well before the trigger is first pulled.
3. I don't think things will be "constantly safe" - You seem consistent with brandon7 with failing to pay attention to key principles. You don't think for one second anything will be safe, you engineer it. Someone or something can "come after us" - we can engineer that they fail. And you don't have to exhibit the same behaviours to achieve.
4. Windows would be retarded, it's a structural weakness and psychologically most people probably won't cope very well wiith staring at infinity long term, as it spins around constantly(from their perspective due to the likely use of centrafugal force to mimick gravity). What is far more likely is their HUD will feature panels that can display... whatever. Including live feed of the other side of that wall, into space.
5. Again, you don't expect it to go perfect, you engineer it. You achieve this by expecting, and accounting for things to fuck up. The intention to use weapons to fight peace if equivical to filling fire extinguishers with pressurised oxygen - It's not going to end well.

None of those five reasons particularly amount to a sensible reason to carry a weapon.

Cut the crap EyeR,

If it was up to me, you'd been gone ages ago.

What was it you said to that one poster, that you could destroy him and put him face to face with things that would challenge his belief that he is at the top of the food chain. Guess what Mr. Smart guy? Those are threats, they are not hypothetical examples just plain unadulterated threats!

Actually it was a direct example. Survival probability in amongst a few polar bears? which one is really going to be lunch do you think? Man is not an apex predator.

As I have said before you are not as wise as you think you are. In fact, it is my opinion that you have things completely upside down regarding how smart you are compared to others. When someone presents you with a point you can not refute. You begin talking about things that have no relevance to the topic being discussed. You also throw in a small bit of truth to make your bs seem believable and others are realizing it.

You have said this before, but then again, you've said a lot of things that have been generally miguided, poorly researched, or just outright untrue. The fact that you have said it doesn't intrinsically make this a fact. I would think myself to be about as wise as I am - what is failing is your assessment on how wise I think I am. For a start I'm wise enough to place research into something before placing comment into a public forum exposing my words - and reputation. I don't talk about anything without relevance, commonly being overly direct and to the point save for when clear logic and simple statements are insufficient and instead attempt similie etc. It would be yourself that throws random and unconnected things together with frequency. Everything I say is truth, or I wouldn't say it.

No, I have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to see through your bs, expose it, and destroy it and you do not like it as if I care. I do not need to conduct research to know when a person is speaking bull shit so why would I? Ummm, dude, that is impossible for me right now financially, actually it's just plain impossible everything goes bad eventually and has to be thrown away.

Yes, you have repeatedly demonstrated intentional belligerence and complete refusal to conduct sensible research that is capable of backing any of your facil claims. That's not my bullshit, that's yours. If you think I'm talking bullshit then you come at me with the science that says it's wrong - not irrational fears.

Who said anything about fighting fire with fire? Which actually is a valid fire fighting technique used to combat wildfires! So? You can not place the blame on the weapon's creater for it being used to hurt others. That aleviates the user of his/her responsibilty for having used the weapon in such a manner. The creator did not force the wielder to use said weapon, they did so of their own will and as such are solely responsible for any injury, deaths, and destruction caused.

The concept of fighting fire with fire is directly analagous to the concept of having weapons as a response to other people having weapons. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to spot this link. Especially given it's delivered context. Yes, when attempting to stem an uncontrollable wildfire a selective destruction is applied, but to directly apply this to the concept of carrying weapons this would imply the cure would involve large "collateral damage". This might possibly be taken as more evidence that you don't actually think about what you're saying. I've not said the weapon crafter should be held responsible for the weapons use. I have not even implied this. I have conversely directly suggested that the use of the weapon is the direct responsibilty of the user, and this fact is what should be adressed the most. Further evidence of your lack of ability to pay attention to important details. Like the value in research in being able to understand complex things, like numbers over 20.

For someone who claims not to be human you sure do think like one. No, no it should not, some people purposely collect weapons for various reasons and often times they have nothing to do with anything being wrong in their daily lives. Like myself for example I have two swords currently one battle ready one not and plan to obtain others. Does that mean something is wrong in my daily life? No it does not, it just means that I find swords well made swords that is to be objects of great beauty. Just like some find guns to be objects of great beauty, you have zero clue regarding anything you speak about. I guess you have never heard the saying "the best defense is a good offense" which quite clearly demonstrates the link between the two!

Weapons collection is certianly a thing - but this shouldn't be a "part of their daily life" - it's more of a "hobby". It's certainly not something they should require to conceal. Or carry around with them. Again, focus should be on why you should feel the requirement to be using weaponry.

You mean well prepared to get their asses kicked? You see, the thing is a smaller force hardly ever defeats a larger force because time is always against them. A large enough force will eventually overwhelm a smaller one it is just a matter of time. Just how many access points do you think there will be to the inside of Asgardia just one? That would be plain lunancy, there will be multiple and a smaller force would have to divide it's forces to cover them all. Meaning an invading force would actually stand a pretty good chance of getting in.

You seem pretty determined to achieve failure. You see, the "larger force" is still incapable of gaining entry. Alive. Unless we let them. They can try staying by the airlock as a 10 tonne cargo pod of food turns up - but I'd not suggest it. Yes, there is certainly sense behind multiple and only madness would entertain a single airlock. But only madness would have the airlock exposed in the MMOD strike layer when not in use. They'd have to find it first, if we didn't just open it for them. Then opening it should provide a challange as they dig through a meter of impact resistent metal foam to get near it. Pressurising it is again a significant challenge, and we can wait until they open their inner and overpressurise it until the point we just fire them off. Or vent their atmos into space.

Name one, just one example of a group that was/is defensless lead to something good for anyone other than the conquerors? Believe whatever floats your boat, it is your right after all. Just do not expect me to believe that bull shit as well, I know better.

But no existing example conforms to such a model as which I paint. Which was at no point painted as "defenseless" - you for some reason have it firmly welded into your head that "weapon" equates "defense". Again, it is yourself that would be overly abundant with fertiliser.

So, in the end I think that all Asgardians of sound mind should be allowed to and required to carry a weapon that fires non lethal rounds considering the danger a lethal round poses

So, in the end, I think that all Asgardians of sound mind should not feel the requirement to posess weaponry to begin with, regardless of lethal intent. Considering that non-lethal rounds are certianly capable of still being lethal, and as we can build this from scratch we can do it "right" this time, and not attempt to build in a requirement for retardedness.

1. A discard actually will not cause any damage unless we are near air locks, air compressors, and flammable areas, may I ask what you know about a discharge? Because you don't seem to know shit.
2. I do think before I respond, do you? You seem to act as if you know everything but truly you freaking don't.
3. If we don't use guns or any weapons at all what will we use?
4. Brandon agrees with me, we will eventually be attacked and boarded one way or another. So what will we do when people are being gunned down? Me and Brandon, probably fight anyway possible probably gonna need a form of weapon. You, I see using others as meat shields.
5. If your so smart, why do you sound so stupid. I've seen your other post on non military subjects and yet that you have good point, when it comes to military, you dont know jack shit.
6. What do you really have against guns because as long as a discharge isn't near the 3 posted it should be a problem and agin stated more than once, THE ROUNDS DON'T HAVE TO BE LETHAL!!!!

1. Rapid localised pressure adjustment in a sealed and pressurised container. Kinetic transfer on impact when spastics that disgregard sense and succumb to irrational fears and thusly think it's clever to combine space with firearms also demonstrate the inability to think coherently correlates to incredibly poor target acquestions and frequently implusive and rash policies - like letting as many rounds downrange as possible in the shortest amount of time.
2. You seriously don't think before you respond, or this conversation wouldn't be taking place.
3. You don't. That's the entire point.
4. Congratulations, someone capable of repeatedly demonstrating a lack of ability to perform proper research, count past twenty, remain consistent, understand cause and effect, pay attention to details - and many other quality features you should really look for when assessing the sensibility of a proposal - agrees with you. When your boyfriend agrees with you, where could this possibly go wrong?
5. You're right, I clearly know absolutely nothing. I've decided to understand things with incrediby finite detail on the micro, macro and quantum scale - but when it came to military subjects I suddenly decided that conducting good research wasn't important. I consistently demonstrate valid concept after valid concept, but suddenly when it comes to something like tactics magically I'm a complete numpty. I couldn't possibly have a long history of playing go. It can't possibly be an indication that you should possibly conduct some better research or address how you've formed your opinions, and how I have mine.
6. Personally, I have nothing against firearms. I'm also a fan of combining this with automation. This is ofc as an individual. As a collective, supposedly an advanced one commited to the peacful use of space, I see more value in not posessing weaponry at all. You can cause problems without being near the listed three. There's many things you don't want to consider, like innocent bystanders. Anything behind the target. Rounds don't have to be lethal by intent, typing in caps doesn't adjust the legitimacy of this it only makes you look simple - but they are still possible to be used lethally intentionally on almost every count. Even this "solution" will generate more problems than it solves. Again, focus should remain on removing the requirement to use weaponry - then you can realistically deal with it's existence(beyond the likes of museum pieces)

Honestly I was the top of my high school class in science, because everyone else found it boring. I am going to be joining the U.S. Navy and studying to be a scientist, not yet for sure which yet but i am. Im a very rational thinker. Barely any troubke but i have been situations wjere talking was no use. I believe in peace I really do, but what makes you think people really want peace? People like North Korea and isis don't want peace, they want war. They will do anything to prove that. And honestly if you support guns then get your head out of your ads and think of a solution to non lethal guns. Maybe Co2 pressured bullets, made of a type of rubber with small silicon in the center for impact. If any glass even scratches then I'm surprised. And seriously knowing big words don't make you smart. It don't mean you know them. Litteraly level 3 tech armor is expensive and for every citizen to have even a chest plate would be a few hundred bucks imagine the cost. Litteraly use your head, and no your not. Your thinking some rediculouse stuff, no army? everyone will be peaceful? No issues will occur? You sound like an A+ grade idiot when you don't consider the safety of others. No if lethal guns are on the station, thats a issue because where they may shoot. No EyeR leave the real dangerous stuff to us big boys, we actually understand and know guns. Especially almost all out comes of certain fun usage. In texas one gun goes off more will be brought to resolve it, not the best idea but hey what if it's armed thugs? Also we can limit who has one with a 2-3 phyci check up, mental stability, which yes are the same but different areas, and another is ask about personal issues, anything that make them go crazy from stress of drama, work, personal issues, or anxiety. Who agrees with me on this?

When you say to someone that your not being quick to destroy them is not a sign of pacisfism but one of restraint. You have just threatened that person with destruction. You could just as easily have said that you are not a pacifist, you just have self restraint and not mentioned destroying anyone. But, you instead chose to mention your ability to destroy someone, which is no different than threatening that person. No, man is not but, you did not have to mention anything about putting someone face to face with things that could challenge their belief of being at the top of the food chain and you certainly did not have to mention that if it was up to you they'd have been gone ages ago. Even if it were up to you humanity would still be around. You do not have the ability to wipe out an entire species. You are not part of some highly advanced species, you are just some disenchanted wannabe who has become prejudiced against your own species!

No, but, the fact that it is true makes it fact and yes, I do have an idea of how wise you consider yourself to be. Everyone on the forums does, most people just do not tell you about yourself in an attempt to be civil. I on the other hand will tell you about yourself. Because you need it and also need someone to take a sledgehammer to your ego and smash it into tiny pieces. A job I consider as my responsibility. Doing research is not always necessary something you have repeatedly failed to understand. Because I have dealt with enough bs artists, I can recognize it when it is presented and no research is needed at all. The same goes for your grossly over blown financial figures regarding buying an island and developing it to support two hundred people.

Sure you do, for example, your abilty to supposedly destroy someone has no relevance to the topic that was being discussed, yet, you felt a need to mention it anyway. How have I been belligerent and do you even know what that word means? Here you go "bel·lig·er·ent bəˈlijərənt/ adjective 1. hostile and aggressive." The only one who has been hostile and aggressive is you. I have made no and make no remarks about you being a drug addict, I do not insult you every chance I get, and I do not threaten harm upon others. You have and do however, so if anyone has been intentionally belligerent you have and continue to be! It still works! For example back in the old west everyone carried a gun and guess what? The amount of public disturbances was way lower than it is today and why? Because everyone was on a level playing field and no one person had the advantage over another without having other people with them and even then that was no guarantee! Oh bull, you specifically mentioned someone using a weapon if someone else built one. Which implies that the person who built the weapon would be responsible for it being used. Ummm, dude, a hobby is PART of people's everyday lives. Therefore someone like myself or anyone else who collects weapons as a hobby. Obviously see a need to have them in their everday lives! The requirement some folks may feel to use weaponry is a simple one, someone with ill intent may feel a need or have a desire to use one on them and they are not willing to allow that to happen!

You want to somehow have the airlock be hard to find!!!? That is incredibly idiotic, I mean really, having the air lock be hard to find would hamper more than just potential attackers and it would not be difficult to anticipate the atmsophere in the air lock being vented or countering such a move. So, placing faith in such an easily anticipated and countered strategy is stupid. Ya, ya, just shut up and name a situation already!? Because it does, if your attacker has a weapon and the intent to do you harm but you have none then kiss your ass goodbye. However, if you both have weapons, then you stand a chance of surviving, so yes having a weapon does equal defense.

Actually, Asgardians of sound mind would still see the possible need for weapons. You have confused them with folks like yourself who are under the misguided impression that we live in a world and are a species that would make not having weapons possible. We do not and are not so get over it and stop suggesting these dangerously naive ideas. Yes, non lethal rounds can at times still be lethal, but in most cases that takes purposeful misuse of such rounds to be the case. Most folks being decent would avoid such behaviour. So every Asgardian of sound mind shoukd be required to carry and be trained to use a firearm. The rounds should just be made to be unable to punch through the hull of any space craft

I'd like to remind everyone to please remember the posting rules, here: https://asgardia.space/en/forum/forum/forum-announcements-10/topic/asgardiaspace-posting-rules-82/?post=50#50

Please behave and respect others on these forums, and this thread. If you are unable to do so, then further comments in any derogatory or degrading form will result in the matter being escalated.

Sorry Leo, but why is it hard to get through to people like EyeR but I will retain some word and phrases.

If countries(not people) like N. Korea wanted war it'd be pretty obvious. Naturally they're concerned about hostile forces with proven malicous intent having been given cause. This has lead to an over focus on offensive capacity in the name of defence. All they want is the same weapons they are being threatened with - much like yourself. Despite having capability to launch to orbit, I doubt they would harbour any specific intent until directly provoked.

ISIS on the other hand is a completely different kettle of fish. A ragamuffin band of tools, easily repurposed by using their own small minded hatreds to achieve alternate purposes. I really don't think CIA controlled and American supplied/armed/trained terrorist cells will be of much concern in space. The opportunities are going to be vastly more difficult in every possible direction.

Just because I think such toys can be fun doesn't mean that I think it's sensible to try and engineer a situation that allows for everyone to have weaponry. As previously mentioned, focus should be on the irrational fear that causes the perception that it would somehow be required to consider regular life.

If it's possible to build something large enough to realistically account for our current population, let alone signups or natural expansion over several generations - and to lend this sensible MMOD strike protection, then the concept of armor for every citizen isn't that rediculous. it'd not even represent 0.001% of the mass required to have on hand to replace any damaged segments of the MMOD strike protection. Literally, use your head. Start thinking what would be involved with supporting life on that scale. Ofc, what would make even more sense is the general lack of requirement to actually wear armor generally. Something a lot easier to achieve generally absent weaponry.

And that level3 wasn't for every citizen, I'd have a lot higher spec on tap perosnally, that was just so you'd bleed slow enough to maybe make it to the door, when comming to make me shut the fuck up.

Yes, I am completely rediculous for thinging core concepts like "demiliterised" would equate to a lack of an army. How stupid of me, I should really learn to pay more attention. Again, as previously mentioned, you do not expect for issues to not occur - you expressly expect them to occur. This is how you can begin to deal with the problem. You really do sound like a grade A+ idiot when you fail to take into account the safety of others by suggesting they be surrounded with danger. You even manage to upgrade that when you manage to fail to pay any attention to logical cause and effect that is specifically highlighted. As a big boy I expect that you should be able to use the toilet unsupervised eventually, but dangerous things should be left to people that can demonstrate the ability to think - preferably adults - as the consequences to otherwise will sincerely place people's lives at risk.

So you are aware Leo,

I have a naturally blunt manner of speech, so, if I ever come across as insulting someone, it is not that I am or have, it is just my natural manner of speech shining through

@EyeR,

Seriously, you are seriously going to hypocritically call out folks who believe that folks should be allowed to carry firearms that fire non lethal rounds as being idiotic because the idea places people's lives in danger as you claim, yet suggest that Asgardia and Asgardians should not have weapons, which ALSO places their lives in harm's way!!? Sounds awful hypocritical to me!

EXACTLY BRANDON IS RIGHT AND FULLY UNDERSTANDS MY POINT!!! Did you read my idea for the guns? Co2 compressors with a tightchamber that shoots rubber layered silicon which when hitting something would brink a human down but would lest likely break or breach almost anything. Only down side is the type of rubber since most are elastic and bounce. Or how about salt guns when shot around certain body parts will stop them, because they will stop to puke, gasp for air, and to remove the small toxic salt. Brandon what do you think?

EXACTLY BRANDON IS RIGHT AND FULLY UNDERSTANDS MY POINT!!! Did you read my idea for the guns? Co2 compressors with a tightchamber that shoots rubber thick laced with a silicon center which when hitting something would brink a human down but would lest likely break or breach almost anything. Only down side is the type of rubber since most are elastic and bounce. Or how about salt guns when shot around certain body parts will stop them, because they will stop to puke, gasp for air, and to remove the small toxic salt. Brandon what do you think?