the sf colony

[N. Escalona]

In 99% of decent, non-3rd-world countries, prostitution is legal, as long as it's kept indoors (ie. You can't grab a hooker from a laundromat, but you can call one out of a phonebook to come to your house/bang one at a brothel).

Those countries are wrong, then.

[SDFilm]

Things like marijuana should be legal, but heroin, crack, that kind of thing, I'm against legalizing it.

As for the w***e debate, prostitution should be illegal.

I agree. Not sure about what our policy on guns would be, though..

[croat1gamer]

well, till then we should have some thingys to manipulate laws of physics
 
i vote for gravity gun fun

otherwise, if we make the gigantic lead shield against solar storms, we could get some nukes and a nuke defense system and bomb the hell out of earth, and they cant retaliate with common means (radiaton cant be destroyed like a nuke, thats why the lead shield is

seriously
because of the structure of the moon colony we couldnt take some really heavy weaponry, so we would have some small caliber weapons for legal use
the army would have the oicw-s and steyr acr-s for usage, some tanks that would look like the apocalypse tank like from ra2 (yknow, the morale of the enemy would fall instantly when they see such an awesome tank), we would have some bigger problems with air based weaponry (fighter planes, etc.)

[N. Escalona]

Things like marijuana should be legal, but heroin, crack, that kind of thing, I'm against legalizing it.

As for the w***e debate, prostitution should be illegal.

I agree. Not sure about what our policy on guns would be, though..

Guns? Legal, as long as its not artillery.

[CheeSeMan.]

you cant have firearms ull blow holes in your airlocks and everyone will die. Anyhows the moonians just came out and p00nted your ass back to Earth! Sup cheap pints on the colony please.

[N. Escalona]

You could build firearms in your own basement if you wanted to. The airlocks must be fitted to the society, not the other way round.

[SDFilm]

you cant have firearms ull blow holes in your airlocks and everyone will die. Anyhows the moonians just came out and p00nted your ass back to Earth! Sup cheap pints on the colony please.

Oh, it'll be a really bunkered-down moon base that'll have thick bullet-proof glass for windows.

[echo_trail]

I'm suggesting some kind of law enforcing unit preserved only for that purpose. And instead of firearms, they'd have electric buzzers, powerful enough to knock a man out for hours. And so guns/buzzahs wouldn't be available to the public.

If we're building a new society, the first thing we're considering really shouldn't be ways to destroy eachother.

[N. Escalona]

If we're building a new society, the first thing we're considering really shouldn't should be ways to destroy defend eachother.

I'm totally serious. The right to defend one's life and property (in the modern world, this means firearms) is integrally part of the right to own one's life and propety. Gun rights is therefore a critical and fundamental problem for any government to address.

- two sides of the moon, what is the problem there?

We can communicate to the opposite side of the Earth, using both fiber optics and satellites. This technology would be available on the moon.

[echo_trail]

I'm guessing you're an american?

Really, if we're to create this utopia, isn't the essential factor peace? All you're doing is threatening people from violating a set of rules by the prospect of their neighbours shooting back at them. as I see it, peace is better upheld if you remove the temptation to violate in the first place.

[N. Escalona]

I'm guessing you're an american?

Really, if we're to create this utopia, isn't the essential factor peace? All you're doing is threatening people from violating a set of rules by the prospect of their neighbours shooting back at them. as I see it, peace is better upheld if you remove the temptation to violate in the first place.

I am American. Though "American" wouldn't be high up on a list of adjectives to describe me, I wouldn't rather live in any other modern country.

Peace is critical, and I agree that an important part of allowing peace is removing incentives to violence. However, human nature is what it is (utopia will never change that), and incentives are never enough to stop violence. This is a classical problem: to ensure peace, you have to remove free will. Removing free will is unacceptable, however, so once incentives are integrated into the system, the best remaining solution is to allow every man the ability to defend himself and his property.

The idea here is not a system of vigilante justice. However, the government cannot watch over us and protect us at all times. Even if it could, it wouldn't, because governments are run by men, whom are imperfect and subject to corruption. Governments can never be trusted to displace self-defense.

I do not cite the Second Amendment in my reasoning, but I am glad that I live in country where the individual right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally recognized (even if it is blatantly violated by modern legislation). Recognizing this right will lead to not a less peaceful but a more peaceful society.

[echo_trail]

I think you're underestimating the value of human nature. I don't mean to offend, but I'm going to assume that your view of "being in control" means to be able to strike back on whoever strikes upon you? I partially agree, although I see handing out guns as a means of killing rather than settling justice. I'm not gonna get into to a discussion about firearms and wether you guys should have them available to you or not, 'cause we'll never agree anyway. But I'll argue that it is in fact possible to settle your differences without firearms, as we have for around here for ages. We're a small country, a population roughly around that of New York. I imagine this lunar society would be relitively small as well, so I know this approach to violence could be used up there as well.

I'm just saying, if we can live in a place where peace is upheld without guns, why not try it?

[Kazuki]

Guns? Eh, I could go either way in that argument. Echo's suggestion on tazer-type weapons seems preferable, but electricity can be much more dangerous than shooting a man in the leg.

I have a solution! Bring back swords! >_>

[N. Escalona]

I think you're underestimating the value of human nature. I don't mean to offend, but I'm going to assume that your view of "being in control" means to be able to strike back on whoever strikes upon you? I partially agree, although I see handing out guns as a means of killing rather than settling justice.

Not exactly. I don't support the right to keep and bear arms because of justice. Justice is something for the government to handle, not individual citizens (except of course when employed by the government). I support this right so that individuals can defend themselves. Hopefully they can also "bring to justice" (i.e. bring-to-government) criminals, but not execute that justice personally.

I'm just saying, if we can live in a place where peace is upheld without guns, why not try it?

That's a good point. For me, the null hypothesis is always legality. The question must always begin, "This is legal. Do we have a good reason for illegalizing it?" Statistically, gun rights makes populations safer. So I don't see the incentive in removing these rights.

We both agree that there is always the possibility of needing to defend oneself. I think it is still very relevant today, but regardless of that, I think that the rights to life and property inherently imply the right to the means of protecting the same. Otherwise, who really controls one's life and property, except the only entity with the right to defend it: the government.

People can be trusted to defend themselves if given the means. On the other hand, no one can be trusted to defend others. On this principle, gun rights seem inevitable.

I have a solution! Bring back swords! >_>

FTW. Anyone here fence?

[echo_trail]

That's a good point. However, for me the null hypothesis is always legality. The question must always begin, "This is legal. Do we have a good reason for illegalizing it?" Statistically, gun rights makes populations safer. So I don't see the incentive in removing these rights.

What?! Statistics show that the murderrates of the US are significantly higher than almost anywhere else!

[N. Escalona]

What?! Statistics show that the murderrates of the US are significantly higher than almost anywhere else!

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n12_v94/ai_21020057
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9506E5D71139F935A15754C0A96E958260

The thesis here is that rural areas are responsible for most of the homicide rate, while our moon colony would be very urban. However this is only a partial demonstration, since I think gun rights apply even in rural situations. I'd go hunting for statistics directly involving gun control, and work on that, but I've got homework to do now.

[echo_trail]

That's where we disagree in terms of the fundamental. While I respect your opinion, I just couldn't ever share it.

I'm gonna go with the sword thing then.

[The Geologist]

This question can only be answered depending on the following:

Does the population on Earth still thrive?  If so, the moon would have a large gun/nuke toting neighbor.  Swords are ridiculous.

Does the Earth die off?  If it were literally starting from scratch, as in all remaining humanity moves to the moon, then I think limitations should be in place.  Although not to the point where civilians can't protect themselves from one another or other threats. 

Also, those articles are both a decade old.  Also, Echo, those rates are based off of total homicide rates - not just firearm related incidents.  A brief (non-caring) search pointed out the rates have dropped since then.  Could be wrong, but I don't really care - this isn't a US policy topic, so don't bring the US into it. 

[N. Escalona]

I've got to say, discussing things here is so much nicer than on Facebook.

[echo_trail]

Geo, I didn't mean to turn this into a US policy discussion topic, i was merely trying to prove that civilian acces to firearms does not necessarily equal safety.

For now, I'm off to bed. For some reason I got up at 5am, couln't sleep. So G'night!