By Thranx21 on Sunday, August 02, 2009 - 10:44 pm:

Does anyone have any opinions on the amount of arms control in the Commonwealth? I have read all of his books and it describes stuff like proscribed weaponry on commercial/private star ships. but really nothing on individual weapons control. I know on frontier/back worlds like Moth and so on there is very little to any control on what you can carry. Has there ever been any descriptions for places like Terra or Hivehom? Here are the weapons in the technology section: Charged-Particle Pistol Dart Pistol Electrocution Gun Hornet VI Needle Thrower Laser Pistol Needler Neuronic Pistol Paralysis Beamer Paxton 5 Phonic Stilleto Pulsepopper Sikambi Secun Vibraknife Slider Snuffler Stinger There are NO federal weapons laws in the states now a days for stuff like flame throwers, lasers, Rail/gauss/magnetically powered guns, air powered weapons. The reason being is because they do not use a self contained cartridge with powder to launch the projectile. Primitive cap and ball weapons are also not considered firearms by the feds. Mr Foster and anybody else who wants to comment. What are your views on weapon control and how do you think you would describe them in the commonwealth?

By adf on Monday, August 03, 2009 - 08:31 am:

A very, very interesting question. As it seems impossible to in any way, shape, or form control weapons on one primitive planet (Dirt...I mean, Earth), I don't see how you could control them on multiple worlds. For explorers, a weapon is just another tool. Also, as technology shrinks other everyday tools, everything from can openers to telephones to electric razors, weapons are bound to enter into the equation. Pepper sprays are a good example. What happens when they become capable of greater accuracy, distance, and lethality? Will they be "regulated" as weapons...or food supplements? This is not a new question in SF. Read The Weapons Shops of Isher by A.E. van Vogt. Old book, not an old idea. Myself, as with weapons I'm a firm believer in Whatever Works. I'd like to see some solid statistics on crime rates, and severity of crimes, in places where weapons are freely allowed, concealed permit weapons are allowed, and weapons control is strict. I retain an open mind on the subject. My wife, who was raised with guns in the wilds of west Texas, already has an opinion. As to the Commonwealth, clearly weapons are widely available anywhere, and not just on Commonwealth worlds. Humans are endlessly inventive in devising new ways to off their neighbors.

By Thranx21 on Monday, August 03, 2009 - 08:50 pm:

I am a firm believer in the bill of rights in its original form and I am not a supporter of drastic gun control methods. Your question on pepper spray is interesting because places like Britain and Canada already ban them along with tasers. Of course that is Europe and they would pass laws that would never fly in the states...hopefully. Lets not even talk about places like California, New York and D.C. We will always figure new and more efficient ways to off ourselves. Sadly it is human nature. We are a violent, heirarchial, and war like race.

By Rolf on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - 11:07 am:

What speaks against weapon control? As far as I know Switzerland is the European with the most murders. In this country a lot of men have rifles at home due to the fact that Swiss soldiers are obliged to take theirs with them after serving in the army. The United States are not exactly known for a small number of murders, and weapons are easily acquired.

By Rembrant on Monday, August 17, 2009 - 07:45 pm:

I don't think I want to pay for enough government for it to be able to protect me from criminals. Therefore I need to be able to protect myself. Plus theres the whole overthrowing tyranny thing. Funny thing is I don't own a gun. I rely on the goodness of my fellow humans. I don't think we are as evil as the media and law enforcent would have us believe. Did I just just totally contradict myself? So what.

By Rolf on Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 02:05 pm:

Sort of, but that's your problem only! Anyhow, we have harsh weapon laws and not very much murders. There are murders, of course, and sometimes even amok runs. Following the last one in Winnenden, the discussion increased about even harsher weapon laws. I have hold a weapon in my hands in 1991 for the last time, and I was wearing an army uniform. I have no desire and I don't see the necessity to own a weapon. Besides, in 1933 weapons had been quite useless to fight tyranny. The assumption of power had been done more by making laws than anything else. The bad experiences finally led to the Fundamental Law with which we hope to avoid such a thing for a second time. The old constitution had offered to many possibilities for a takeover.

By Rembrant on Sunday, August 23, 2009 - 10:58 am:

Rolf at least you only contradict yourself from post to post. Not in the same post like I do. In your post from the 12th you say "Switzerland is the European with the most murders" Then in your post from the 20th you say "we have harsh weapon laws and not very much murders" I try not to get into debates because I have never changed anyones opions in debate and my own opinions have never been changed by debate. In fact I have only had one major shift of opinion in my life. That was in regards to capital punishment. I still think there are crimes that should cost you your life if you commit them but I have lost faith in our systems ability to convict the right person. As long as there is any doubt about the guilt of the convicted I can not support capital punishment.

By Rolf on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 10:20 am:

Ah, I see that I have forgotten to include the word "country" in my message. The correct sentence must be "Switzerland is the European country with the most murders." Just joking! ;-) Your assumption that I am from Switzerland is wrong. I thought that my reference to 1933 would have make that quite clear. I am a German and believe me: Hitler was made chancellor and then he made the parliament give him more might. When Hindenburg died, Hitler became president as well. Most of it was more or less backed by the constitution and the law. So, I am not a friend of widespread weapons and I don't see the need. I also strongly oppose death penalty, which has definitely been abused in Germany, but even in a democracy like the USA it pose more problems than benefits. The USA kills its murderers, but does this mean that there are fewer murders? And from time to time it becomes clear that an innocent person has been convicted. When the death penalty has been executed there is no way back. The death penalty does not help, only social programs and more rigid weapon laws.

By PAX on Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 09:48 pm:

I don't believe the death penalty in the USA is meant to deter murderers. Most murderers are not thinking about consequence when they kill. It is only meant to rid the world of someone they (society) views as unable to relate/behave in our social environment (and perhaps as revenge and/or punishment bestowed on the murderer themselves). So no, I don't think the death penalty itself is going to reduce (nor is it meant to) the number of murders per say. Neither are stricter guns laws (the degenerates will always find a way to kill--or get guns for that matter). Social programs--I've never understood what the point of social programs would do to rid an "evil" person of their tendancies to kill...that's like using an spray bottle to put out a house fire, particularly in the hands of government.

By Rolf on Monday, August 31, 2009 - 01:55 pm:

Well, the point is that the European way seem to work better. Less weapons mean less chances to use them, social programs reduce the potential for violence in the poorer quarters of our cities, and we don't even use death penalty. Instead you can expect to be free after mere 15 years, unless the court has stated a extraordinary heavy guilt. This means jail until a psychological examination states that the murderer is harmless enough to be free again. The system is not perfect, and especially the usual limitation to 15 years in the case of lifelong sentences usually disturbs the outraged citizens. But remember, most European countries have much less murders than the USA. Yes, and when somebody is proven to be not guilty we can release him with an apologize. In the USA he might have already been killed by the hangman. I really prefer the European way.

By PAX on Monday, August 31, 2009 - 08:11 pm:

I suppose most of us prefer the ways of our home. I am no different for the most part. Although I can't say I agree with the death penalty personally (I have a hard time with the moral justification of taking a life for a life) but like you said of the "European way" ours is not perfect, but neither is anyone else's. And as such I would much rather have the right to use my weapon of choice to defend myself if some psycho tries anything with me or my family.

By Rolf on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 12:10 pm:

So you are wearing a weapon always to defend yourself? It does seem logical on first sight, but in reality those lawful Americans killed by criminals usually didn't have one. Vice versa honest Americans turn into criminals by using their weapons in absolutely inappropiate situations. Do you remember the student from Asia who rang at a door to ask for the way only to find himself shot down by the owner of the house? Even worse, the man was sentenced not guilty as the jury saw this as legitimate way to protect his home.

By PAX on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 08:28 pm:

No, I don't always wear a weapon--that is not the point unless you live in a chaotic society (I personally don't see America as a "wild west" society by any means--if it were I would move elsewhere). But I would not use a weapon for any other reason but to defend myself. "Honest Americans" aren't turned into criminals by the presence of a gun in their hand--they control the gun, the gun does not control them.

By pjlr1984 on Friday, November 06, 2009 - 12:01 pm:

I suppose I have a vastly different view of things. I live in Alaska and I have had several jobs where you were required to have a gun on you at all times. This was to protect you from bear. (I was working at a fish hatchery) However that being said I also wear a gun when I am not out in the bush as the most dangerous animal walks on 2 legs. I have never had to pull a gun on a person, I have had to use it on a bear once. I believe everyone should have the right to carry arms but they should also be trained in how and when to use them.

By PAX on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - 10:04 pm:

Alaska presents situations that would not occur in most areas of the US I'm sure. I have actually been in situations where it was not required, but strongly urged to carry a gun (to protect yourself against wildlife, not humans). If guns were banned in the US I wonder where that would put people like you--eaten by bears at fish hatcheries? So would there be exception then? Then how many exceptions would/should there be? Then some people would be allowed to carry guns and some would not...and I am certain the "criminals" would not be the ones following the gun control laws or care what the exceptions were. I guess I have a hard time accepting that the government should tell society who is allowed to have a gun and who isn't--I don't particullary trust their judgement...