Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

soph · 2003-04-19 20:37:51

That's a myth. If you look at the data that statement is so far off the mark that it can't possibly be attributed to anything but outright fabrication. This sort of propaganda is put out by the same people who take statistics of rival 17-year-old gang members killing each other in turf wars and referring to it as "children killed by guns" rather than criminals killing each other with guns.

Those are children killed by guns. I don't remember the last time I stood by somebody and said "bang" resutling in their deaths.

Yet far more people die in auto accidents than firearms related incidents.

Well that's obvious, and expected. Far more people own cars, and operate them every day, than own and operate guns. A much smaller percentage (a much better barometer) of car owners end up dead or wounded as a result of accidents than gun owners.

Cars serve a practical purpose, guns are plain and simple, meant to injure, kill, or nullify another person (or for an exception, to hunt).

Guns aren't that complex, it's a simple piece of machinery. The basics don't take much time to explain.
As for the driver's license analogy, the requirements are rather arbitrary. While you cite the above requirements, those in my state are significantly more lax, yet Michigan's auto accident rate is no worse than the rest of the country.

Usually, the states with more crowded roads are more stringent. Come to New York City, and see how a newly lisenced Michiganian driver fares. Detroit is nowhere near as crowded as the New York Metro area.

Think of it like this: Software companies continually increase the copy-protection on their products, yet the cracks always follow the offical release by weeks, sometimes days. Nothing they do will ever stop software piracy. Same basic concept.

So you're saying that Microsoft should remove any copyright protection, so anybody can just pirate the software if they have a CD-RW drive? Sorry, not buying it.

Cobra Commander · 2003-04-19 21:07:13

Those are children killed by guns. I don't remember the last time I stood by somebody and said "bang" resutling in their deaths.

If you want to think of a violent criminal as a child simply because he's a few months under 18 that's your call, but most people won't agree.

A much smaller percentage (a much better barometer) of car owners end up dead or wounded as a result of accidents than gun owners.

I'm curious as to where you're getting this information. Iraq's information minister seems a likely source given the outright falseness of it.

Cars serve a practical purpose, guns are plain and simple, meant to injure, kill, or nullify another person (or for an exception, to hunt).

To be blunt, sometimes that is a practical purpose.

Usually, the states with more crowded roads are more stringent. Come to New York City, and see how a newly lisenced Michiganian driver fares. Detroit is nowhere near as crowded as the New York Metro area.

I take it you've never visted the Detroit area. The traffic is horrendous in many areas. While I've never been to New York I can safely say from personal experience that overall Detroit has heavier traffic than Chicago or D.C. and Everyone I know whose been to New York did not find it any worse.
Recently, A few years back I ran across an NTSB study that showed Detroit's traffic was second only to L.A.

So you're saying that Microsoft should remove any copyright protection, so anybody can just pirate the software if they have a CD-RW drive? Sorry, not buying it.

Now here's the problem with analogies: just because there's a comparison on one level doesn't mean you carry it over on all. Software piracy is theft. It is illegal simply by nature of what it is and serves no purpose but to cheat the maker out of money. Firearms ownership is not harmful in and of itself. If I have a bootleg of Windows XP I have deprived Microsoft of what is rightfully theirs. If I have a gun I haven't harmed anyone in any way. If I carry a gun I haven't harmed anyone.

Might as well get this out the way too. Let's not even get into the comparison of gun registration with car registration. In the latter case it has nothing to do with safety, it's about taxes. Not applicable.

Soph, I can tell from your previous posts that you're an intelligent individual, but on this issue you're misguided. I blame the public education system...

While I don't really want to keep batting this topic back and forth I'm sure it's going to continue. Just can't not respond, it's like asking Democrats not to whine about 2000, or Hitler not to talk about Jews. Everyone's got that one button I guess. ???

soph · 2003-04-19 21:13:57

So you would rather reduce the regulations on guns, so that any criminal can walk in a store and buy a gun, no questions asked?

Public access fatal weapons! All the criminals have to do now is buy the cop-killer bullets.

I take it you've never visted the Detroit area. The traffic is horrendous in many areas. While I've never been to New York I can safely say from personal experience that overall Detroit has heavier traffic than Chicago or D.C. and Everyone I know whose been to New York did not find it any worse.

Actually, I have been to Detroit. In my experience, NYC is worse. It can take well over an hour to get a few city blocks over.

If you want to think of a violent criminal as a child simply because he's a few months under 18 that's your call, but most people won't agree.

Why even bother calling him a child? The fact is, that the likelihood that the person would have died without the gun's intervention is very slim. And that's the point, here.

Cobra Commander · 2003-04-19 21:30:51

So you would rather reduce the regulations on guns, so that any criminal can walk in a store and buy a gun, no questions asked?

I never stated such a thing.

Actually, I have been to Detroit. In my experience, NYC is worse. It can take well over an hour to get a few city blocks over.

That sounds exactly like one of Detroit's satellite cities, Troy. Quite possibly the worst traffic I've ever seen. But as you stated, downtown Detroit isn't that bad. It's the surrounding areas that are the problem.

The fact is, that the likelihood that the person would have died without the gun's intervention is very slim. And that's the point, here.

This "fact" is based on what precisely? It's the person's criminal lifestyle that led to their death in this case, the particular instrument of that death isn't really relevant. More importantly, it is highly unlikely that any law would have prevented this person or the thug who killed him from having guns. The vast majority of gun related homicides are committed not by some office worker that snaps but by career criminals, whose behavior is not affected by laws. And that's the point here.

soph · 2003-04-19 21:39:43

I never stated such a thing.

This whole thread has seen you say that guns only need light training. That statement goes against everything you've been saying all thread.

Cobra Commander · 2003-04-19 21:49:32

I never stated such a thing.
This whole thread has seen you say that guns only need light training. That statement goes against everything you've been saying all thread.

I have said that the basics of gun safety don't require lengthy classes. I have said that the basic operation of a gun is simple and easily understood. I have implied that acceptably effective operation of a gun can be taught quickly.

I never said that criminals should be allowed to buy guns, no questions asked!

clark · 2003-04-21 08:25:33

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.

The threat represented is greater by its possession than by its absence.

A gun on Earth can make sense becuase it can be employed in legitimate pursuits not related to self defense. The role of a gun in space is only for self defense, as such, it is only an issue regarding self-defense. We as a society are at liberty to regulate the manner of acceptable self defense an individual may employ. We can have guns on Earth as individuals, but not nuclear weapons. understand? The same in space, we are allowed to have a means to defend ourselves, but it dosen't have to be a gun.

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,

And the same can be said for being a doctor, a dentist, driving, saftey inspectior, etc. By allowing regulation with permits, we allow for an opportunity to express what a desired level of professiency must be before you are entrusted with a dangerous piece of equipment. Yes, it is simpel to learn. A 5yr old can learn. But should a 5 year old learn? What should they learn? Hoping that everyone learns appropriately (kinda like, "let em pick it up on the street") is short sighted. We see those results now.

What's wrong with making sure people are competant enough to use a gun?

There are two issues here, wether guns should be allowed in space (which I clearly believe should not be the case), and two, the rights of gun ownership. I don't care to argue the latter, as I don't particulary care.

Guns are simply a bad idea in space.

Palomar · 2003-04-21 09:34:37

Guns are simply a bad idea in space.

*Here's an alternative to guns [you'll have to add the HA's! and AH's! and OO-HAH's!! in your mind, tee-hee]:

http://www.lyricsxp.com/lyrics/k/kung_f … uglas.html

--Cindy :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2003-04-22 15:43:22

We can have guns on Earth as individuals, but not nuclear weapons. understand?...

Obviously, a nuclear weapon is essentially useless for defense, even by national defense standards. It's deterrence. A gun has both defense value and deterrence. A gun is simple, can be precisely directed at its intended target and no other, and is and will continue to be readily available in one form or another.

The same in space, we are allowed to have a means to defend ourselves, but it dosen't have to be a gun.

Agreed. I'm using "gun" primarily as a general term for a compact, reliable form of self defense that has deterrent value. If some non-lethal weapon is all that is allowed I can accept that on most levels, but it must be understood that the people who are a real threat will have weapons of the lethal variety regardless of the prohibition of them.

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,
And the same can be said for being a doctor, a dentist, driving, saftey inspectior, etc. By allowing regulation with permits, we allow for an opportunity to express what a desired level of professiency must be before you are entrusted with a dangerous piece of equipment.

What I was trying to say was that we can have proper training but not a formal permit process. Admittedly I hadn't really though about this angle until I posted on it, but I'm beginning to see more merit in the suggestion of basic firearms (or acceptable substitutes) training is schools. While I'm not outright advocating such an approach (hell, I was trolling when I first suggested it) it is something worth considering, even if only for the sake of discussion. If such training was widespread enough than the vast majority of people would be competent to possess a weapon without a "permit". Unlikely, yes. But not entirely unreasonable.

Guns are simply a bad idea in space.

But when the permanent human presence in space becomes large enough, it will become an issue. We can't escape it. Somebody will be armed, the only question is how many and who.

clark · 2003-04-23 08:55:05

But when the permanent human presence in space becomes large enough, it will become an issue. We can't escape it.

Okay, imagine you're in a space colony of some derivation. What are you surrounded by? Machines. Movement is montiored for all people. Why? Becuase if there is an emergency, we have to know where the people are when we respond to the emergency. That means sensors. That means cameras. That probably means everyone's vital signs are monitored by a computer looking for emergency situations that may spiral out of control.

Part of understanding crime is understanding the thought process of criminals. Criminals don't evaluate commiting a crime as based on punishment they might receive. They evaluate based on probability of getting away versus getting caught. An environment that has persistent montioring will reduce instances of crime becuase it really won't pay.

Where are you going to run? A murder occurs- hello, lock down, no one in or out until the culprit is caught.

If the issue is self defense, then any weapon that offers similar functions and capability as a 'gun' is more preferable than a weapon that only provides a lethal option.

Even in self defense you don't need to kill anyone. You need to simply protect yourself from harm.

I don't think our schools should go through the trouble of teaching kids how to use guns. That is not their responsibility. The responsibility is upon the would be user of the gun. If you feel so passionatly about this right, about your need for a gun to protect yourself, or for whatever, then you must be willing to go through a process to assure that you're not some yahoo with a bad attitude.

Private training schools, or courses offered at firing ranges make more sense. A gun in the hand of someone who dosen't knwo how to use it is more of a threat to you and I than a criminal. I can do things to protect myself from a criminal, I can do nothing to protect myself from an idiot.

Cobra Commander · 2003-04-25 17:53:39

Okay, imagine you're in a space colony of some derivation. What are you surrounded by? Machines. Movement is montiored for all people.

One possible scenario.

Why? Becuase if there is an emergency, we have to know where the people are when we respond to the emergency. That means sensors. That means cameras. That probably means everyone's vital signs are monitored by a computer looking for emergency situations that may spiral out of control.

Again, perhaps. Or the colonists may decide that simpler emergency monitoring systems are preferable. The machinery of the colony can be monitored directly, watching the populace is unnecessary. yes, if a section depressurizes it's nice to know how many people are in there, but it has no real relevance to dealing with the problem. If it's empty or has a hundred people inside, you have to seal it off. Letting Big Brother monitor everyone's vital signs serves no purpose other than to control everyone's behavior through fear. If this is your intent, fine, just say so.

Part of understanding crime is understanding the thought process of criminals. Criminals don't evaluate commiting a crime as based on punishment they might receive. They evaluate based on probability of getting away versus getting caught.

Many murders are "moment of passion" crimes. No amount of surveillance nor the certainty of getting caught will stop them all. Whether the populace will be willing to sacrifice virtually all the liberties we have grown accustomed to in order to prevent many crimes is a valid subject for debate, but to assume that it is already a foregone conclusion is absurd.

If the issue is self defense, then any weapon that offers similar functions and capability as a 'gun' is more preferable than a weapon that only provides a lethal option.

I can accept this. If a non-lethal defensive weapon that is as reliable and effective as a gun is available, great. I have not yet seen it.

I don't think our schools should go through the trouble of teaching kids how to use guns. That is not their responsibility. The responsibility is upon the would be user of the gun.

As previously stated, that suggestion was off-the-cuff and not a serious, well thought out proposal. That it has some merit when taken in the context of drivers-ed being taught in school was really my only point there. Outside of that banter with Soph it's not relevant.

I can do things to protect myself from a criminal, I can do nothing to protect myself from an idiot.

But an idiot criminal... Now that's entertainment.

Algol · 2003-04-28 13:35:00

I cant believe you guys are even discussing weapons in space or on mars.

Firearms will never make it into space or mars for a long time simply because weight is too precious and will be tightly monitored.

I am so exasperated by this thread that i hardly know where to begin. If you simply dont manufacture or allow the manufacture of firearms on mars there wont be any. There would never be any need to have any, ever. I assume that you guys are american because you automatically assume a prevalence of illegal firearms and that the only method to combat this is to grant general access of weapons to everybody.

The real only reason behind the general prevalence of guns in the world today is due to international conflict, its why eastern europe is rife with guns, why iraq is (only now) rife with guns in the general populace, its the original reason america is rife with guns (war of independance - and you loved them so much you wrote ownership into your constitution)

The only way to combat guns is to never, never, allow them in the first place, even assuming that there may be competeing mars colonies, there will not be any competition over resources or space for at least hundreds of years, by which time the well educated and civilised (a technology reliant off-world colony could not function without these two aspects) colonists would not resort to general war in order to solve disputes. Even if some illegal weaponry is smuggled through, lack of ammunition and spare parts will stop them being effective, and a society will learn to deal with a small ammount of extreme crime (much like the rest of the civilised world deals with gun related crime).

If people need to kill each other there are far easier ways of doing it than smuggling a gun from earth; knives, hands and blunt instruments have sufficed for a long time, and policing forces have dealt with them for a long time. Gun ownership will not be a big problem on a future mars, the solution to problems is not to give everyone a gun.!
???

nick

Cobra Commander · 2003-05-02 18:25:39

Even if some illegal weaponry is smuggled through, lack of ammunition and spare parts will stop them being effective,

The problem is that projectile weapons are easy to build, and when the population becomes large enough someone will.

and a society will learn to deal with a small ammount of extreme crime (much like the rest of the civilised world deals with gun related crime).

Which is to say they will investigate, pursue the perpetrator, and in some cases call for new laws that will be no more effective than the old ones.

colonist · 2003-05-02 23:01:54

First, let me say thin very simply: THERE WILL BE PROJECTILE WEAPONS ON MARS. We will be developing a technological society and in doing so we will need iems that can be easily converted into weapons.

For the simplest, take a container of pressurised gas, mount a ball valve on it and fix a length of pipe to the valve. stuff a bit of wadding material and a berring or stone into the pipe and you have a gun. And dont forget that modern construction REQUIRES the use of explosives that, for Mars, must be synthasized on planet. The chamcal gear to produce blasting agants can produce propelants too (or a particularly adventrous individual could build a firearm that uses blasting caps {!!!}). To those who will say that we can prevent this, remember that we have firearms being made in maxium security prisons today.
We need to deal with the FACT that firearms will accompany humans wherever we go in the universe. To claim that we can put up soe sort of gate and keep them out of any area is to lie to oneself.

That said, While I personaly believe in the RKBA and would suport it on mars as well, I will personaly pitch out the nearest airlock anyone who discharges a firearm in a pressurised habitat. Firearms are TOOLS and should be viewed as such in this instance.

Algol · 2003-05-03 07:54:57

Of course it is easy to manufacture a crude firearms, just as it is easy to convert a kitchen knife to a weapon (ie just use it in a different way), making lethal weapons is easy and a curse of our own intelligence. However to actively manufacture firearms and distribute them to the population is foolhardy and invites the worst.

I live in the UK and pretty much the only people here with guns are the IRA, now the only places that they have been able to get guns are failed or failing states such as Libya and Columbia, and more recently they have taken advantage of the conflict in eastern europe (they actually import some from america too - but im not going to go down that road), on mars there will be no failed states or large scale conflict and so no need for the manufacture, and/or distribution of, personal weaponry.

Cobra Commander · 2003-05-03 10:00:21

I live in the UK and pretty much the only people here with guns are the IRA,

and violent criminals. I've seen the crime statistics from your own government, don't you find it odd that a significant increase in crime followed the latest wave of gun bans almost immediately?

But that aside, you're missing the point. Gun-related crime involves two primary factors that come together to make it possible. One, the presence of a gun, and two, the criminal behavior that results in its improper use. You're focusing all the blame on the tool and not the person who uses it. Trying to ban the tool is ineffective and avoids the real problem.

Algol · 2003-05-03 12:31:32

Are you suggesting that a ban on firearms has actually led to an increase in gun related crime? And that reducing legislation an making firearms more freely available would somehow reduce it? Maybe if red tape were reduced to the level that they were sold like cds in shops then all the violent criminals would stop using their guns? That was a rhetorical question.

It is true that there has been an increase in gun related crime in this country, but this has been attributed to an increase in availability, here ill find you a link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....s24.xml

"....the availability of weapons - many of them from eastern Europe - is also increasing. Detectives in London say that the illegal importation of guns started after the end of the Bosnia [1995 - 2 years before hand-gun control] conflict and that they are changing hands for as little as ?200...."

As you can see, an increase in supply (from eastern europe as i mentioned) led to an increase in availability and drop in prices, thu sthe increase in gun crime - they are being IMPORTED not produced here. The increase in gun crime is due to an increase in guns, not an increase in violent criminals. Violent criminals have been and always will be dealt with, but to believe that somehow arming the general populace will reduce gun related incidents is simply wrong.

nick

Cobra Commander · 2003-05-03 13:17:02

Are you suggesting that a ban on firearms has actually led to an increase in gun related crime? And that reducing legislation an making firearms more freely available would somehow reduce it?

Rhetorical or not, yes.

It is true that there has been an increase in gun related crime in this country, but this has been attributed to an increase in availability,

So you admit that gun-control laws don't work.

The increase in gun crime is due to an increase in guns, not an increase in violent criminals.

No. It is due to the fact that now only criminals have guns. Most citizens obey the ban. Criminals, who by definition don't obey the law, continue to have weapons. I'm certain that the number of guns in the United Kingdom has dropped signifianctly since the ban, but they've been taken from the wrong people. Gun bans tell criminals that their victims are unarmed, thus making crime easier and leading to more of it.

Violent criminals have been and always will be dealt with, but to believe that somehow arming the general populace will reduce gun related incidents is simply wrong.

The intent is not to "reduce gun related incidents" per se, but to change the outcome of those incidents. Unarmed citizens facing armed criminals are easy meat, this is a very basic concept. Nearly every recent attempt at gun control has led to an increase in crime, any assertion to the contrary is wrong. Recent experience argues against it, all of human history argues against it. To make policy based on the gun-control fantasy is fundamentally flawed, a legend in the Annals of Wrong.

Algol · 2003-05-04 05:28:59

Ah yes, the classic seperate-the-argument-into-individual-sentences-thus-removing-all-context-and-allowing-you
-to-appear-to-relpy-to-an-argument-without-actually-making-a-point method. You may as well have picked me up on my grammar and spelling. Look, its easy.... i can do it too!

I'm certain that the number of guns in the United Kingdom has dropped signifianctly since the ban

So you agree that gun-control laws do work

Sorry, ill stop now let me show you how it is done. If you make claims in an argument you need to supply proof or evidence.

You claim to have seen the statistics from my government so i am sure you are very familiar with the following document.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb103.pdf

Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002: Supplementary Volume is, as you know, the most up to date information available detailing gun crime in the UK. I could post the entire document but instead I have selected form this file some very interesting quotes that im sure you remember from last time you read it.

Let me refresh your memory....

"Overall, firearms (including air weapons) were used in 0.4 per cent of all recorded crimes. The proportion excluding air weapons was 0.18 per cent."

Naturally in the safe old US of A with your enlightened gun laws these stats will be far lower, wont they?

"There were 97 fatalities and 558 serious injuries resulting from crimes that involved firearms (including air
weapons) in 2001/02."

What? In the whole of England and Wales? With a population of over 50 million? Obviously, that side of the pond, there were far less than 250 fatalities last year.....

The report goes on to state that 53% of firearms offences involved robbery as opposed to 5% which involved burglary (i.e robbery in the home).So you would let everyone have a gun in there home just in case they are a victim of this 0.009% of total crime?

"However, firearms were reported to have been used in 4.5 per cent of all robberies in 2001/02, a much lower figure than in 1991 (11.7 per cent)."

But i though all the criminals had guns now?

"The highest proportion of robberies were committed in shops and on public highways [31% and 36% respectively], followed by other premises or open space."

I'm sure you would advocate letting people carry guns on the street to combat the latter, and maybe we should just let shop keepers keep guns at work to combat the former. But wait, if theyre not allowed to transport them to and from work each day [a bitter blow to you im sure] then theyd have to leave them in the shop. But...

"During 2001/02, 2,910 firearms were recorded by the police as being stolen"

Oh deary me! Gosh, all these criminals running round with our legally licensed guns, our money wont even be safe in the bank!

"However, the total number of firearm robberies in banks and building societies is considerably lower than in
1991 (250 compared to 1,395 in 1991)."

Now im just confused!

Anyway, please feel free to check me on the above quotes, i would hate to have quoted out of context. If you can read through thinly veiled sarcasm (sorry about that but gun-nuts do get me riled up) and relpy coherently i would love for you to find some similar statistics for America and prove to me that you live in a safer society.

nick

colonist · 2003-05-04 08:55:09

My biggest problem with such laws is that the people who will obey them are not the people who are dangerous. Criminals who will dissobey a law prohibiting murder will not obey one prohibiting posession or manufacture of a certain type of weapon.

As for the practicality of such a ban, remember that during the colonisation Mars will resemble a giant construction site. Much of the equipment needed to suport human colonies can provide the raw materials needed for manufacture of firearms (even military type firearms that you seem to be primarily concerned about). Also, there will be extensive machine shops that will provide the capability to turn that raw material into useable firearms. Living in the UK as you do I am sure that you have heard about the "sten" gun, turned out by the thousands in European basements by partisans useing nothing but hand tools. Then there are the hand produced firearms from Vietnam, Afganistan and many other areas that are functionaly identical to the mass produced weapons they are coppied from.

The only PRACTICAL regulations on firearm should pertain to conditions of use. Fireing in self defence should be allowed, amuntion restrictions inside habitats (like light plastic bullets), you get the idea.

Algol · 2003-05-04 10:52:43

Arm the police if you must, and by all means increase their numbers to deal with any perceived threat, but arming the populace is hypocritical and dangerous. Let the police protect us, its their job.

nick

Cobra Commander · 2003-05-07 13:56:11

Ah yes, the classic seperate-the-argument-into-individual-sentences-thus-removing-all-context-and-allowing-you

-to-appear-to-relpy-to-an-argument-without-actually-making-a-point method. You may as well have picked me up on my grammar and spelling. Look, its easy.... i can do it too!
I'm certain that the number of guns in the United Kingdom has dropped signifianctly since the ban
So you agree that gun-control laws do work

Ah, yes. The ignore-the-forest-for-the-trees approach. Your statement contradicts your overall point that gun control keeps guns from criminals. I made no such contradiction, I admit that gun laws keep guns from law-abiding citizens.

As for the Home Office crime report, it also stated "Firearms other than air weapons were reported to have been used in 9,974 recorded crimes in 2001/02.
This was a 35 per cent increase over the previous year."

Oh, but guns are illegal! How can this be?

"Handguns were used in 5,871 recorded crimes, an increase of 46 per cent on the previous year. Seventy
per cent of robberies in which a firearm was present involved a handgun."

But it's only part of the story. For example,

http://www.virginutah.com/saved%2....com.htm

Refering to the International Crime Victims Survey conducted by the Dutch Ministry of Justice. I'm sure the entire document is available online but I have neither the time nor the inclination to search for it. There is also the UN Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute's report from 2002, putting England and Wales way ahead of most of the Western world in violent crime.
We can throw figures and references at each other until the sun goes nova without convincing each other of a damn thing, so what's the point? Moving on...

Arm the police if you must, and by all means increase their numbers to deal with any perceived threat, but arming the populace is hypocritical and dangerous. Let the police protect us, its their job.

Actually, that isn't their job. Police respond to crimes, they generally arrive after the fact. They can investigate and apprehend the criminal but usually they can't stop the crime from occuring. Their job is enforcement. If it were protection they wouldn't be police, they'd be guards.

Out of curiosity, how is arming the populace hypocritical? If anything denying them weapons is hypocrisy, assuming of course a belief in free and representative government. If we can't let citizens possess weapons because they may hurt another individual, then surely we can't allow them to vote. The policies they bring about might hurt the entire nation. The horror! We have to nip this freedom thing in the bud before it goes too far!

Back on the topic of Mars, Colonist has a clear view on this. Criminals with weapons will be a problem eventually. It breaks down like this: Will Martian colonists need weapons to settle the planet? No.
Can we prevent weapons from being imported? Probably.
Can we prevent them from being made on the planet? No.
Can we prevent the criminal impulse? No.

Any legal code must acknowledge this reality. The weapons on Mars may not be identical to those we have now. Certainly they can be adapted for that enviroment. But to seek to deny their presence entirely in the belief that it will make the people safer is folly.

clark · 2003-05-07 14:27:27

Why should people be allowed to own a gun?
Answer:
1: Sporting events, i.e. hunting or marksmenship.
2: Hobby, i.e. collector or general afficiando of guns in and of themselves, like collecting stamps or rocks.
3: Self-defense, i.e. to protect oneself from another harm.

So lets see how these apply to space, or in this case, Mars.

Reason number ONE: Sporting. Well, there really won't be anything *to* hunt... other than the rocks and other humans. I think we can agree that there is little reason to allow guns for people to hunt rocks on Mars- the value does not exceed the threat a gun represents based on this one reason.

Reason number TWO:Hobby. Many people have various tastes- some like certain foods, other certain music. However, we don't neccessarily allow people to collect samples of their favorite disease. Why? Becuase the threat to the many outweighs the value to the one.

Reason number THREE: Self Defense. By far, this is the hardest to argue against. A gun DOES provide self defense. However, is it the only means to provide self defense? Are their other means, some even better than a gun?

The answer is "yes" there are other forms of self defense that are better than a gun, and safer to more people.

the favorite line of gun advocates is for self defense. "I want to protect my family, myself, my way of life...etc." Well, I ask, have you learned any martial arts, or other form of self defense based on just your own body? Afterall, a man can take your gun when all is said and done, but he will be hard pressed to take away your body.

It used to be that when you went far from your town, you ended up in wilderness where all you had was agun to keep the natives and the bears at bay. That reality is pretty much gone. That reality will not exsist in space, or Mars.

You see, we had guns before- or any weapon, becuase it was extremly difficult to call for help. There were no phones, no faxes, no personal IM. You could call for help as far as your voice reached (or maybe a smoke signal could be seen)- and then the response to a request for help to a long time.

Now we have large groups of people living close to one another with the ability to call for help in the matter of seconds, with a response in minutes. The neccessity for the gun is diminished because we are able to call for help. Becuase we are NOT alone, by ourselves.

I respect the premise of self defense, and the gun as a means to achieve that- but it is not inalienable, and it is not without limit.

Palomar · 2003-05-07 14:30:41

*You know, this thread reminds me of something I read at a Yahoo! message board months ago. The news story pertained to Charleton Heston as (now former) President of the NRA. A person posting to the message board claimed to be from Australia and entitled his contribution to the message board "Heston 1st Brain-Dead Ape in America."

I laughed so hard that tears were going down my cheeks.

Most Americans reading it got really angry; I told them to chill out -- I'm an American and I thought it was hilarious. I guess I like complex, sarcastic insults or something.

Yep, there probably will be guns on Mars some day. I hope not. And what I really hope doesn't ever evolve there is a gun culture like that in the U.S.A., where this metallic substitute for certain genitalia is revered and adored by both genders, as if one could never live without owning at least 20 of them!

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-05-07 14:36:09

*And you know what else? I've been following this thread intermittently, on top of tons of other reading, so forgive me if I'm going slightly off-topic here:

Does anyone REALLY think the Founding Fathers of the U.S.A. could foresee machine guns and assault rifles when they penned "the right to bear arms"? What were guns back then? Let's see here...muskets, right? Most people were poor, and had to melt their own lead and mold their own bullets at home (one at a time). Gunpowder had to be carried in a horn (preferably). Each bullet and bit of gunpowder could be loaded just one at a time, tamped down, etc. You'd better shoot that bear/wild cat/whatever dead the first time, because chances were you'd be attacked and mauled to death before you could get the danged thing reloaded again.

I think if the Founding Fathers of the U.S.A. could have foreseen what the musket was going to evolve into, they would have been a lot more choosey about their words AND a lot more specific.

The right to bear arms was what it was then. It's been a whole different ballgame for decades now. Who the hell needs an assault rifle anyway, except the military?

This isn't the first time I've posted in this manner to various internet forums...I usually get no response.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-04-19 20:37:51

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#52 2003-04-19 21:07:13

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#53 2003-04-19 21:13:57

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#54 2003-04-19 21:30:51

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#55 2003-04-19 21:39:43

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#56 2003-04-19 21:49:32

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#57 2003-04-21 08:25:33

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#58 2003-04-21 09:34:37

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#59 2003-04-22 15:43:22

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#60 2003-04-23 08:55:05

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#61 2003-04-25 17:53:39

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#62 2003-04-28 13:35:00

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#63 2003-05-02 18:25:39

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#64 2003-05-02 23:01:54

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#65 2003-05-03 07:54:57

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#66 2003-05-03 10:00:21

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#67 2003-05-03 12:31:32

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#68 2003-05-03 13:17:02

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#69 2003-05-04 05:28:59

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#70 2003-05-04 08:55:09

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#71 2003-05-04 10:52:43

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#72 2003-05-07 13:56:11

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#73 2003-05-07 14:27:27

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#74 2003-05-07 14:30:41

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#75 2003-05-07 14:36:09

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

Board footer