Should we ask Asgardian Leaders for the citizens to own firearms?

Total number of votes: 83

25.3% Definately Yes

41.0% Definately No

7.2% If the legal system is secure enough

8.4% Once the justice system is suitably appropriate for punishments issued.

18.1% Maybe, it deserves serious debate

0% Maybe it DOESN'T deserve serious debate.

Dec 28, 16 / Cap 27, 00 22:52 UTC

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

Should we ask any Asgardian Leaders on whether or not we should be allowed to carry either concealed or not, firearms?. There are likely to be some serious questions and answers flying about the place but seeing as most people so far are fixated on space defence I thought I'd ask a more personal question. I have included a poll asking for your opinion but it is pretty simplistic, so feel free to add your comments. I know gun crime is serious but as the saying goes " Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them". Firearm ownership would or should be more enlightened for a new society as most if not all of the current worlds laws in any country are pretty daft if you ask me, and as someone who had to jump through hoops to get his own license whereas the Royals (yes I live in the UK) can own and carry without license I feel its maybe about time we had a proper choice. So should we ask for the right to own and carry?, once and if we ever get land or property would we be allowed to carry openly or concealed?. My idea is that if we are allowed gun ownership maybe citizens that want them should submit to proper sensible checks, both in safety and storage, undergo safety training, understand that any criminal act involving firearms will be met with an appropriate punishment (ie, murder with a firearm, life with parole, assault or robbery, 5 years in prison minimum, all the way to flashing or brandishing in the course of intimidation 3 months in prison, and any citizen wishing to own must spend at least 6 months (either full or part time) in military service (maybe not frontline but either as police or behind lines active duty?).

Feel free to add your comments and constructive criticisms below. If you are in favour please explain why and the same goes for not being in favour as well, (p.s simply not liking firearms is not a good enough reason IMHO)

  Last edited by:  Hadden Bramham (Asgardian)  on Dec 28, 16 / Cap 27, 00 22:55 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: Additional text.

Dec 28, 16 / Cap 27, 00 23:02 UTC

Personal opinion: I'm interested in Asgardia because I see the chance to create something that can be considered a lot better than the current reality on Earth. Asgardia's concept is peace in space. We don't need firearms whatsoever. And if we do, then I wouldn't want to be a part of this.

  Last edited by:  Alessandro Fiume (Asgardian)  on Dec 28, 16 / Cap 27, 00 23:03 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: typos

Dec 28, 16 / Cap 27, 00 23:52 UTC

Definitely not, carrying a firearm (especially in space) is a bad idea. A single shot puts the lives of every Asgardian at risk with a containment breach. Metal walls are not the greatest at stopping bullets.

Dec 29, 16 / Cap 28, 00 01:23 UTC

In my opinion I think Asgardia must have the military force because no one knows what will happen in the future. If one day the terrorist attack Asgardia then there are no defense force to protect Asgardia ,then the tragedy will happen. So I think Asgardia must have the firearms.

Dec 29, 16 / Cap 28, 00 03:05 UTC

I agree, There should be typically no requirement for weaponry.

This said, it's incredibly difficult to give someone like me anything that I can't weaponise. Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right.

Firearms are not the onlything viable as weapons. Things you would consider "innocent" can do far more damage, if you want them to.

Asgardia's primary defence will be the geographic remoteness making it difficult to obtain, combined with it's distribution across space. Whilst taking a swing at the right hand, you really need to be watching counterance from the left. That's not to say this will be the only thing, just the first significant hurdle they will have to clear to even think about it.

Personal weapons would not equate a military force. I don't think honestly we shall ever have requirement for a military force - however, that is not to say we shall be defenceless, I just don't think our defence forces will conform to current definitions of "military".

For "terrorist attacks" to be a considerable action, someone would have to feel strongly enough about us in a negative way to actually perform the act. What do you precisely think we'll be doing to others that will result in this outcome? We won't be oppressing anyone. The way everything is being set to be of mutal benefit to the Earth as a whole, as much as each individual, The entire premise makes no sense.

Even understanding that this is commonly a tool of governments acting in the shadows of degrees of seperation in order to destabilise foreign powers, or in order to provide distractional excuse to enact draconian responses, then you must take into account our geographic remoteness. They have to get to us before they can do anything, and when they do why would we possibly afford them the opertunity?

Dec 29, 16 / Cap 28, 00 18:45 UTC

I wouldn't be opposed to citizens having mandatory martial arts/self-defense training, but firearms are out of the question without proper training, simply due to the sheer catastrophic damage they can wreak upon spacecraft. This is coming from someone who grew up with them, was trained, and is of a military family. They're simply too dangerous to just let anyone have one.

Now, if we do decide that people should have that right, then fine, but there needs to be mandatory training. Individuals with brain injuries, prior violent convictions (Such as abuse, assault, etc.), severe mental issues that could amplify the weapon's likelihood to be used against themselves or others, and tourists, should not have firearms (The mental disorders, if medicated or properly treated, which I hope will advance sufficiently in time, should be negotiable).

Dec 29, 16 / Cap 28, 00 19:08 UTC

+1 education.

Increasing knowledge is rarely a bad thing.

I've thought firearms training should be mandatory for a long time, even in places where firearms are not common or even illegal. Being illegal didn't stop me from getitng hold of them. Anyone with sufficient ken could just build one. Being trained in use should naturally cover being safe with firearms.

Martial arts are also not a poor idea - as most commonly also deal with various facets of being responsible regarding the use of - and such ethics are easily transferable to other fields.

Dec 29, 16 / Cap 28, 00 19:34 UTC

Yes, we need more weapons.

Dec 29, 16 / Cap 28, 00 22:47 UTC

No, what you need is the ability to think.

Any tool is a weapon, if you hold it right.

Prohibiting weaponry is unlikley to be effective against the determined. However, being able to engage your mind can result in a resolution that doesn't involve weapons. And in the rare cases there is no other option available, then being able to think would allow you to use it effectively.

Dec 30, 16 / Cap 29, 00 04:05 UTC

I think that citizens have the right to carry weapons, but by management.

Dec 30, 16 / Cap 29, 00 04:56 UTC

human's a weapon itself, teeth, nails, combating skill, if one is determined anything common can be used as weapon, there're reports about dead and fractured bones by high heels, but there's no rule banning high heels, weapons like guns just higher the efficiency. it's not comfortable that everyone carrying weapons around, whenever a behavior of u is considered "weird" by someone, u get shot, that's fearsome, everyone imagine others will attack abruptly, stay high alert "24hr * 365day" tire ppl out which is not a good condition for good decision. r u sure the guy get shot is a "bad guy"? if it's just misunderstanding or mistake, the victim punched will recover a few days, whereas victim shot rest forever, thought peace is relaxing and concentrate on constructive activities instead of destructive ones

  Last edited by:  Ezra Lew (Asgardian)  on Dec 30, 16 / Cap 29, 00 05:14 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Dec 30, 16 / Cap 29, 00 11:30 UTC

Really depends how and where you punch them - there's plenty of cases where people have been killed with one punch - deliberately and accidently. Personally, I feel fists are not as useful as knees and elbows.

As previously mentioned, it's difficult to take away offensive capacity, especially to the determined. Education on the the other hand can give rise to a situation where you can find a way to deal with most things without violence. In the rare cases there isn't any other option, it can be used effectively.

Realistically I don't envision a situation where any citizen should be given need to attack another, mitigating the need to defend ones self, ones property, or the life of another. However, the most difficult to erradicate facet that could give rise to such would be immaturity, and or failure to leave behind problematic behavioural trends established on Earth.

Dec 31, 16 / Cap 30, 00 07:31 UTC

ho ho ho ^_^ , good punch, eye, agree, it depends who launch the punch, kongfu master and some trainees can control their attack strength and avoid fatal position well, stop rivals' further destructive behavior without killing them, but ppl who r not quite familiar with anatomy or hostile attackers maybe act dangerously on purpose or accidentally. sorry 4 the loose thinking, agree with discussion & negotiation solve disagreement better.learn more jokes maybe help reducing quarrels like "it's a joke""not funny" BANG! good jokes include more ppl laughing together instead of exclude

Dec 31, 16 / Cap 30, 00 08:52 UTC

Personal weapons seems a little contradictory for a peaceful space nation. However I do believe we need a standing army for defense against enemies in the future that could come from earth or even possibly another planet. I believe it would be in our best interest for the citizens of our nation to be required to complete basic military training and even be required to serve time in our military before continuing on in their other professions. Not a long period at most a year in which they would acquired weapons training and experience in self defense.

Dec 31, 16 / Cap 30, 00 17:34 UTC

"Army" would imply "military". And the militerisation of space is forbidden in the outer space treaty... Ofc, we shall have requirement for "defence forces".

I'm not being simply pedantic here, there are subtle differences, and these differences are important.