New Mars Forums

I see what you're saying. My take on it is that the burden to produce a clear argument is not on why we should allow weapons in a colony, but why we shouldn't. On Earth I see no reason for blanket prohibitions of weapons and until someone makes a very good argument as to why it's different in the enclosed enviroment of a Martian colony I see no reason to amend that view. If someone makes a case I'm glad to hear it, but so far that dome argument and a more general fear of damage to machinery is the best I've been confronted with.

In my zeal to defend my position I may have given the impression that I don't see a need for proper training. Clearly, handing someone a firearm and expecting them to intuitively know how to safely handle it is unrealistic. However, such training does not need to be involved in a "permit" process, wherein you take a course and receive permission from the authorities to acquire and carry a weapon, complete with application processes, administrative fees, ID cards and the like. Proper training can take many forms, particularly since basic gun safety doesn't take a lot of time to teach.

It just occured to me that gun safety and basic markmanship could be taught in public schools. I know I'm going to give some the impression that I'm a gun-crazed wacko by even suggesting this, but why not? We offer driver's training in high school, why not firearms safety?

I for one assume no such thing, but if we are to be a free people then we have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they give reason to do otherwise.

There are times, navigating crowded streets at rush-hour, when I'd feel safer if all I had to worry about was some incompetent boob trying to shoot me with a weapon he has never used before.

Blatantly defying a promise I made just one post up. I feel like a politician... Damn.

Not allowing felons to buy guns is sensible and was understood in principle by the founders of this country. More recently, the Gun Control Act of 1964 takes care of that. A convicted felon can be sent to prison for ten years simply for touching or attempting to acquire a gun. If they go into a gunshop to do it they triple that (attempt to acquire, possesion if they touch it, and lying on the form you have to sign stating you are not a convicted felon) . We don't need new laws for this.

As for permits, why? If you are not a convicted felon, not mentally ill, not an illegal alien (all covered in the '64 law) then why shouldn't you be allowed to exercise your Constitutional (and arguably natural) right to possess the means to defend yourself? Having to acquire a permit is not only infringing on Constitutional rights (do you have to get a permit to exercise free speech? ) but it's redundant.

Dangerous ground, dismantling the Bill of Rights.

The former depends on the latter for its long-term existence. If you have an opinion and I have a contradictory one and a gun, who's going to be heard? I know this sounds simple and uncivilized, but when you break down civilization, law, rights and every other construct of society it comes down to the ability to exercise force. If you lose that ability you become dependent on the good-will of others and humanity has a poor record in that regard.

Unless you need the weapon quickly to defend yourself. I know that somewhere out there is some poor bastard that was found dead in his home holding a gun with a trigger-lock on it. (Seriously, I've seen the police report on one such case. ) I've never locked up a gun, yet no weapon in my care has ever been used to harm anyone intentionally or otherwise. These locks are a gimmick, and a dangerous one at that. The way to ensure safety is keep guns from criminals (by enforcing the laws we already have, not making new ones) and to stop villifying firearms as some talisman that channels evil and death and start treating them as simply potentially dangerous tools.

I am certainly not a "gun fanatic" by the way. I don't have an arsenal hidden at home, nor do I oppose any form of regulation. But the reality needs to be acknowledged that laws do control the behavior of criminals who by definition do not obey them. Do we need to be armed to hold back a foreign invasion? No. But a home invasion, that happens all too often.

As I for one am rather tired of the gun control debate, this will be my last post on the matter here. Rejoice.

If the argument is about the Second Amendment's meaning, the people who deny an individual right to bear arms are just flat out wrong. The amendment is clear enough and the writings of the founders clarify any ambiguity that might exist. Any assertion to the contrary is simply not correct.

If the question is whether the general population should be allowed to own and carry weapons there is room for debate. However in this case, as the Founding Fathers understood, if weapons are prohibited only the criminals will be armed. Yeah, I've seen the bumper sticker too, but it's true.

In short, advocates of gun control must in some form renounce the Bill of Rights if their position is to be remotely defensible. And even then, they'll still be wrong.

As for firearms in a Mars colony, obviously no one needs a .50 caliber machine gun, though I do recall Zubrin's mention of the effect of a .50 cal bullet on the likely materials of a Martian pressure dome (Kevlar, the same stuff they make bullet-proof vests out of). Hardly a cause for panic, the resulting hole would take days or weeks to depressurize the dome. "The Case for Mars", I believe around page 30, 33, something like that if anyone wants to look it up. Based on that, the threat posed by the presence of a 9mm handgun is literally no worse than it is on here on Earth where the threat is from the operator, not the device. Besides, if anyone wanted to kill a few people in a Martian colony there are much better ways that using a gun, and if the dome can't stand up to a few shots I would strongly advise not living in it given the punishment it's likely to be subjected to by the enviroment. Claiming such colonies should prohibit weapons out of concern for the integrity of the dome is asinine. If an individual doesn't wants guns on Mars that's fine, but they really need a better argument.

Finally, it's easy to stop people from taking guns to Mars, but projectile weapons are easy to make. Particularly if you have access to metal pipes and pressurized gases. People with weapons are a reality on Earth and the same will be true of Mars. Trying to ban them will only make it worse. If a people are to be free and secure they must be armed, deal with it.

Rant concluded. Carry on.

Good article. It sent me into a brief lament on our lack of progress. NASA has been going through the motions for decades, accomplishing essentially nothing.  All while a clear and achievable goal winks at us in the night sky.

"Remember that the old space program wasn't concerned with military conquest or subjecting a people or seeking out selfish gain. It was about challenge and discovery and excitement and small men with giant ideas facing the vast emptiness of the universe."

That line in particular struck a chord, though not quite in the way it was probably intended. It was the drive to push back the frontiers despite the risks that allowed us to reach the moon is the same spirit that in an earlier time drove civilizations to conquest and empire. Essentially, the conviction that we will because we can, and furthermore that it is ours by right.

We seem to have lost that. We have become more concerned with the financial costs and political risks of undertaking great endeavors. We've become a people more concerned with the possible risks than the potential gains. We have grown soft. The loss of the Columbia may actually help our space program by giving us a fresh reminder of the need to replace our aging shuttle fleet, but the drive to actually do anything as bold as a manned mission to Mars just might be too far gone.  In our zeal to throw off the shadows of a past that had its share of dark chapters we've lost something profoundly important. Our certainty of purpose and resolve have eroded. Russia launching a useless satellite spurred us toward Apollo out of little more than national pride. Now with China aiming for the moon, there are but a scattered few who care.

Mars is attainable, but it will not give itself freely. Mars must be conquered, and a meek and uncertain people will not prove up to the task.

Hell, the ground campaign got going last night, live and in color. "Campaign" isn't even the right word so far, considering that it's the fastest advance in the history of warfare.

May it all continue to be as easy as it has been.

And then a pummeling starts...

I don't want to make light of this, but I have to admit that al Jazeera's cameraman has a great shot from whatever rooftop he's holed up on.

I'd actually be more interested in watching someone try a pitch for a research grant to find out.

"You want how much to teach monkeys to swim freestyle?"

Now that is interesting.

Regarding the mention of a pre-emptive strike on the reactor:
Pyongyang: We'll put a torch to New York

Saber rattling. That's what nukes are for ???

Admittedley I just skimmed through the last week's worth of this mess, so I'll take your for it.

It seems we have another of those rare instances of agreement, then

Okay, fights over. No more excuses.

Not even a single round, dammit.

Assorted quotes...

Not alone, but probably the worst in modern times (with the possible exception of the Japanese army in China)
Of all the drivel in Nazi propaganda, the Red Army behaved exactly like the barbarian untermenschen they were portrayed as.

Inflicting civilian casualties directly in the course of carrying out a military action, while unfortunate, is completely different from specifically brutalizing the civilian population. American troops on occasion kill civilians, but they do not conduct themselves like a plundering band of savages.

I'm in complete agreement with Soph here.

It seems that both parties have been straying from those principles of late. I've never thought of myself as Anti-American, but I'm not a big fan of the Republican party and the Democrats irritate me on almost a daily basis. Great country, bad choices.

Because they are the more dangerous threats. Toppling Hussein is one thing, plunging the entire planet into war is quite another.

I have no problem with the violation of UN resolutions. But when people argue that those resolutions actually mean something while the UN won't enforce them is absurd. If the UN is relevant, they must take decisive action against Hussein. If they do not, they are nothing more than a debate club. It's the double standard that we should work with the UN, but others can ignore it with impunity that I find unacceptable.

To be honest, if I were in Saddam's position, I'd be stashing weapons all over while giving the UN a big digicus imputicus. The UN is a joke. If it wants to be taken seriously after this it needs to enforce its own laws. Otherwise they might as well change the sign to "League of Nations" and stop showing up for meetings.