What is important to me Scarbs is surviving any situation that may endanger my life. I would not expect to be made to face consequences for defending my right to exist and I surely would not accept any consequences for doing so. The idea that I should be made to is hypocritical. The people who would pass such laws would not be willing to do so were they in said hypothetical situation so why should I? The only way I would ever submit to such an idea is if everyone including those who dreamt it up did so as well and I do not see that happening. So, if I am seriously going to be expected to forego the right to defend my existence as a citizen of Asgardia then, I would rather stop being a citizen of Asgardia, because I believe if the rules apply to one person they should apply to all and you nor anyone else can name just one person that would be willing to go without the ability to defend their right to exist and continue doing so! That is why I will always disagree with any suggestion that seeks to take that inalienable right away from anyone. That said, if I were to cause another harm for no justifiable reason with a weapon then sure, I would accept the consequences, I am not a coward and believe that should I break the law, I am in no way so special that I should not be made to face consequences for doing so

@Boone,

His screen name is Scarbs and part of being civil is addressing folks by the proper title. He addresses you by your proper screen name, have the decency to return the respect shown

Brandon, I never suggested that you be singled out to be defenseless or have no right to defend yourself if threatened or attacked. The hypothetical I asked was about a situation where ALL citizens of Asgardia were subject to a law where unauthorised possession of a weapon was an offence. That means everyone from the President right through to the guy that scrapes crud of the floor is subject to that law and equally subject to the prescribed punishment if they breach that law.

You are right in that I can't name one person willing to forgo the right to defend themselves, their family and/or property if threatened. I sure as hell wouldn't. But there seems to be plenty of people that have contributed to this thread (myself obviously included) that seem to be of the mindset that this right can be protected without the need for any citizen to possess purpose-built weaponry (lethal or sub-lethal).

There is obviously a HUGE cultural difference on this issue. There has been, and will be, many other issues where Asgardians from all parts of the globe have fundamentally different views on things based on their cultural background and identity. This is where I think the biggest challenge of Asgardia and Asgardians lie - working through these differences to unite towards a common vision and goal which, in some cases, may mean some people have make decisions whether to leave behind some, part or all of their long held views and beliefs on certain issues or part ways with Asgardia altogether.

I'm not saying I'm right on this. I'm not saying you are either. However, it is obvious that this is one of the hot button issues that will have to be worked through to a resolution in the development of Asgardia.

@Scarbs,

I understood your hypothetical, I was just adressing the reality of the situation. Defending one's self can be done without weapons admittedly, but trying to do so when your opponent has one requires very thourough training and continued practice of whatever martial arts you have taken up. The problem with that is not everyone can take martials arts training and those folks will need an alternative method to defend themselves. Suggesting that they go without one is the equivalent of asking them to wear a sign saying I have no way to defend myself. While surrounded by folks who would take advantage of that fact, it leaves them vulnerable. So, in all honesty what the issue seems to be to me is, that those of the mindset that weapons whether lethal or not are not necessary to defend one's self are pushing it as the only possible solution that could work and it is not true. The most that should be done is people given the right to choose for themselves and if they should choose to use a weapon of any sort. Then they should be properly trained in it's use, upkeep, and if it is a firearm it designed to shoot non lethal rounds that do not have the power to punch through the hull. As long as the citizens are trained to responsibily use their chosen weapons everything will work out just fine. Oh, and, you misunderstood me, I was referring to the idea of being made to face punishment for defending myself with a weapon being hypocritcal by itself. Not that I was singled out to receive punishment for doing so. Guess I worded things in a not too clear manner my mistake

Got the now invalid captcha any this time!

Brandon7, I've answered your question multiple times actually, giving you numbers and facts, but you guys still ignore all of that, every single of your replies is basically a copy and paste of the previous ones, so I'm done trying to making you understand what an evolved society looks like. Wanna join a space Far West? Good for you if Asgardia turns out that way then, but in that case as I've said, I would happily leave the project to it's inevitable end. We'll see.

With that being said, I leave this Thread, I won't read any further message, since it's become quite redundant and it seems we can't find a common ground. May that happen in another discussion. To all of you gentlemen, have a nice day.

Deleted

@Alessandro,

Giving me numbers regarding gun related fatalities does not answer my question regarding the claim you made and finding common ground means to find something we can both agree on. You have no interest in finding common ground, you just want me to be convinced that your's is the only idea that will work in this situation. Anyway, thanks for admitting that not having weapons does not lead to an advanced society even if you did so silently

I hear you Brandon, scarbs you make it seem that like any weapon even pepper spray is horribly a bad idea, if you support our rights to defend ourselves then why fight on conceal weapons, the non lethal gun I'd a understanding but why not batons or tasers? They aren't major bad. But seriously though aleo again sorry if I misspell your name but pointing out gun related incidents isn't actually answering, honestly there is bad to guns but also good, now think we also have discussed non lethal guns and other non lethal non gun weapons, such as batons and tasers. So scarbs what weapons do you support?

I've, again, the same opinion as @Alessandro Zuffi, maybe 'cause we both are italians and not used to walk in streets thinking the ones approaching us can carry weapons.
He also gave data in support: the question was clear, my answer was clear too: "no".

I don't mind if someone among you can use a rubber, a paper page or a pencil like a lethal weapon: I know there are "proper" or "improper" weapons. Proper ones should be banned to be carried by civilians for any reason, no matter if they use them to spread butter or to butcher people.
Police/Security should carry non lethal weapons, even with a martial arts training, and can access lethal ones if needed.
We all, citizens and Police, should be trained in military weapons use, but those weapons should be sealed 'till government ask us to use them.

I think all the above is so simple to understand that I won't need to explain it further: that's my personal position and won't change, whatever butter you'll need to spread with whatever weapon. If you feel so in danger, just remain on Earth.
Side note: Space is dangerous enough, we don't need it to be more dangerous, allowing lethal/non lethal weapons into citizens' hands.

The entire argument, on both sides boils down to fear and distrust.

Those who do not trust authority, or fear authority, will want weapons for themselves to protect against any attempt to enslave or control them. The same is true for those who distrust or are afraid of strangers. Their fear will drive them to believe that only they are willing or able to defend themselves.
Those who are willing to trust others, or are unafraid of others, will not want weapons for themselves, because they do not believe they can be controlled or enslaved. Whether those others are strangers or government officials is irrelevant.

Neither side will ever persuade the other that their side is correct. The fearful will always be afraid, and the fearless will remain so. Thus, this entire thread is all mental masturbation and grandstanding, with no possible end result other than a difference of opinion.

LJG

That's true, @Phicksur, but I'm seeing more than enough fear of strangers where I'm living.
And, when something happens, all shouts against "the strangers".
But, when Police do investigations, they discover it was the shouting ones doing the crime, nine times of ten.
So, I repeat, if one have to spread unneeded fear in the space, just remain on the Earth.

Well, the majority of us do not personally know each other and have no idea whom we can trust. So, it is no surprise that distrust exists however, I for example would be far less likely to trust someone, who does not trust me just because I wish to own a weapon for whatever reason and not because I have been proven to not be trustworthy. So, if the folks who are against the idea of the citizens being allowed to possess weapons want to be trusted, they need to show those who would like to own weapons that same trust they seek. Fear plays a role for both sides but, some of those fears are irrational. For example some think having weapons onboard would make the situation more dangerous or equate to more deaths. Which is not true at all, those are just assumptions based on only seeing negative data as far as gun related deaths and crimes go and arguments created by fear mongers. The danger will not increase in anyway, the same things that could happen in a weaponless environment will still be able to happen in an environment with weapons. Furthermore, everyone would be taking the exact same risks. So, I really do not see any incentive for some firearm owner to not exercise responsibility while using said weapon. Which includes designing rounds that simply will not have the power to punch through metal. Like a round that collapses upon impact with a hard surface. A round like that would not have the momentum needed afterwards to punch through metal as everytime the layers of the round collapsed. They would add to the mass of the surface hit making it more resistent to being punctured.

Mental masturbation at this point in time - yes, absolutely. An issue that could potentially fracture the population when / if an Asgardian habitat is in operation - also yes.

I don't know if I would call it grandstanding though. More a warning that there is a deep, and seemingly unresolvable, fundamental difference of opinion on this issue.

Honestly Brandon I've given up on this after my last, they are right both sides are from distrust and fear, good reasons but we need to focus on something more important the food we will eat i want all natural ingrediants from hydro farms and our housing, will we do pods for singles? Or small apartments and if we do apartments the makers of star citizen can help with room design if you seem theirs for their game. Honestly as long as security is well trained and we can have a small need for weapons again batons, if those of you not dead take note. But we have to worry about how we will live. How we eat, our routine, our areas, how we love, accessible resources for civilians, what we can have, and what will we work for our future. So honestly I still support our right to carry weapons but as long as have a way to fight back. That's what matters. No to everyone here. Including myself look at good points of people carrying weapons and this does not mean just guns, this goes for any really, also look up the bad and let's focus on what's important, I'm done with debates. Goodbye

And no I was not out fact, out done, corrected,or anything like it. I'm just done fighting ill just bring up to them personally. Brandon, mech, and elwe thank you for backing me up, but here the fight is pointless. Now goodbye

And no I was not out fact, out done, corrected,or anything like it. I'm just done fighting ill just bring up to them personally. Brandon, mech, and elwe thank you for backing me up, but here the fight is pointless. Now goodbye