Feb 24, 17 / Pis 27, 01 03:07 UTC

Re: Personal defense, the debate on carrying weapons on the person.  

The need for self defense is inherent within our species, and all species.

The idea of traditional firearms is woefully backwards for this type of concept though, and so an alternative would be a form of tasing system combined with smart tech to alert the system of who all is involved with the altercation relative to the outcome.

Traditional gunpowder would doom us all.

Feb 24, 17 / Pis 27, 01 13:04 UTC

On board a space station, a chemically reactive, projectile-throwing, lethal weapon is a bad idea for ANYONE to have, whether they are a private citizen or security personnel. People miss.

On board a station, that means someone or something else is getting hit. On a space station, there are oxygen-carrying pipes that, if hit, will explode.

I am a strong gun rights activist myself and think it is a horrible idea for guns to be on a space station.

Feb 25, 17 / Ari 00, 01 15:25 UTC

I think I can get the inner pressure hull resistent to most firearms people are likely to be able to walk around with via the likes of high density metal foams. Let alone the outer pressure hull.

Still don't think that makes firearms in such an environment a good idea.

Mar 12, 17 / Ari 15, 01 20:51 UTC

Anyway i carry my personal 9mm pistol

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 19:13 UTC

Sure any citizen that wishes should be able to carry whether concealed or open a firearm. Said firearm does not have to fire lethal rounds that could pose a problem as far as hull breaches are concerned. It can fire non lethal rounds as well and anyone who understands the serious danger a hull breach poses. Will for damn sure not take any chances of causing such an incident, nor will they support the use of ammunition by others that could pose that very same risk! So many people are still using their Earthly way of thought, as if, they would be in an environment where using lethal ammunition poses no danger. Well, guess what folks? You have to adapt your way of thinking to reflect the environment of space and the dangers associated with it. Because if you do not of course there will be trouble


With all due respect no one but you cares about the things you can repurpose into weapons. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, so, would you kindly shut up with all the bragging? Go stroke your ego elsewhere

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 19:46 UTC


Dude, you are totally calling EyeR out on something he said over a month ago.

Are you really trying that hard to find things to pick fights over?

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 21:37 UTC

No Phicksur,

I am not

  Updated  on Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 00:39 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 01:20 UTC

We need a strict test easy to pass if your alright and stable if not then it will be hard, a mind, personality, and actions are the rest, litteraly when someone grabs the nearest weapon for any threat that's should be a automatic fail, one most threats no need for any gun but there will be a need for a gun in alot though, oh let's say we are boarded by a attacking enemy.

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 05:01 UTC

You can be stable today, but not so tomorrow. There's a lot of future. It's best you start accounting for it now.

Being "boarded" isn't an excuse to require firearms. Gaining proximity required to initate a docking alignment without our express intent should be difficult. Should this magically occur then the act of pressurising the airlock can be mitigated by venting their atmosphere directly into space, forcing them to abort the attempt or suffocate. It's kind to do this before they enter the airlock but we could wait until after. Opening the airlock without the pressure level will likely detach their ship and most likely wreck it. Assuming none of this occurs, and they don't get the bends due to the air mix difference, then as they cross the threshold they are concentrated and easily dealt with, compressed in such a fashion execution is rediculously simple but as something moves past the airlock it can get cable tied. A few dozen people can realistically defend against thousands, and realistically take no injuries in the process.

All without a single firearm, and expecting the "enemy" to have them.

  Updated  on Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 05:02 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: typo

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 15:06 UTC

They could blow the air locks have low magnetic boots that are are strong enough to stop them from flying and attacking us right away. Also how could prevent a range attack with no weapons?

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 19:00 UTC


Why do you foolishly assume that such a tactic as depressurizing the air lock would not be anticipated? Seriously, we are talking about an experienced small military team versus a possibly non military trained force even if it is larger! Also, why do you assume that their will only be one way onto Asgardia and not multiple and that any miltary trained invading force would not have the common sense to attack all points of entry at once to force the defending force to have to split their forces!? All Asgardians citizens of sound mind should be required to and trained in the use of firearms that fire non lethal rounds

  Updated  on Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 19:01 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 04:51 UTC

EXACTLY and limiting asgardia to 1 exit would be foolish what if we are being attacked only on one side allowing people to escape into emergency ships, if developed but even then 1 door or not they can breach hulls to make it easier venting people. So why would the airlock be their only choice if they aren't there to capture it?

Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 07:20 UTC

We should at least have a body guard group to protect government officials

Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 07:20 UTC

We should at least have a body guard group to protect government officials

Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 11:32 UTC

Who would protect the citizens then mech?