This is for colonization generally. Spaceships, settlements, colonies etc are highly technological things, with hundreds of machines and sensitive electronics needed to keep them running. Bullet hits a vital component in the life support or damages one of the computers used to keep everything working, and you are all in trouble. Hits the backup as well, or there is no backup and you are toast.
Also - the atmosphere is held in with pressure of ten tons per square meter. You do all you can to protect it from micro-meteorites - but nevertheless a larger meteorite would destroy it, e.g. ISS frequently has to maneuver to avoid pieces of debris in space. Would it survive a gunshot from within? I don't know.
So, how can that work? Except things like tasers, if they can be designed not to damage the spacecraft or habitat.
As someone from the UK where we haven't got anything like the second amendment, then I don't understand the point in it anyway, must say.
I understand it's based on the idea that citizens need weapons to avoid the government becoming too powerful - but - in the US what citizen would have weapons able to out fight the US military? It doesn't seem to make too much sense to me, that the second amendment still functions as a way to keep the government in its place and to stop it from getting too powerful.
But don't have the historical background to all this that you have in the US. So, take what I say in that way as a remark by someone who doesn't understand the basic premises behind the US debate - and I don't think that many here in the UK do either.
Whether or not it works in the US, then in space, I can't see it working like that, just a danger to anyone who is in the same habitat as someone who fires a gun, not something likely to keep governments in place and stop them from becoming more powerful.
The spaceships themselves are more weapon than any handgun could be. Especially against other spaceships or habitats, impact would destroy both. Or a bit of debris from an incoming spaceship could destroy a habitat.
Also people in space will be highly vulnerable from small accidents, a leaking spacesuit would kill you, or a bad weld or anything like that, or just forgetting to do something in the sequence of things you do when you put on your spacesuit. You've got to remember that everywhere outside of the small windows of your habitat or outside of your spacesuit is death to humans. Hardly any need to add to that.
Rather, everyone in space colonies or settlements will need to work closely together just to stay alive, and trust each other thoroughly, or they have no chance of survival.
That said, the Russians do take guns to the ISS - but it's for use on Earth after landing on the way back, if they end up in a remote place and are attacked by wolves, polar bears or such like..
James Oberg's Pioneering Space
Also - the atmosphere is held in with pressure of ten tons per square meter. You do all you can to protect it from micro-meteorites - but nevertheless a larger meteorite would destroy it, e.g. ISS frequently has to maneuver to avoid pieces of debris in space. Would it survive a gunshot from within? I don't know.
So, how can that work? Except things like tasers, if they can be designed not to damage the spacecraft or habitat.
As someone from the UK where we haven't got anything like the second amendment, then I don't understand the point in it anyway, must say.
I understand it's based on the idea that citizens need weapons to avoid the government becoming too powerful - but - in the US what citizen would have weapons able to out fight the US military? It doesn't seem to make too much sense to me, that the second amendment still functions as a way to keep the government in its place and to stop it from getting too powerful.
But don't have the historical background to all this that you have in the US. So, take what I say in that way as a remark by someone who doesn't understand the basic premises behind the US debate - and I don't think that many here in the UK do either.
Whether or not it works in the US, then in space, I can't see it working like that, just a danger to anyone who is in the same habitat as someone who fires a gun, not something likely to keep governments in place and stop them from becoming more powerful.
The spaceships themselves are more weapon than any handgun could be. Especially against other spaceships or habitats, impact would destroy both. Or a bit of debris from an incoming spaceship could destroy a habitat.
Also people in space will be highly vulnerable from small accidents, a leaking spacesuit would kill you, or a bad weld or anything like that, or just forgetting to do something in the sequence of things you do when you put on your spacesuit. You've got to remember that everywhere outside of the small windows of your habitat or outside of your spacesuit is death to humans. Hardly any need to add to that.
Rather, everyone in space colonies or settlements will need to work closely together just to stay alive, and trust each other thoroughly, or they have no chance of survival.
That said, the Russians do take guns to the ISS - but it's for use on Earth after landing on the way back, if they end up in a remote place and are attacked by wolves, polar bears or such like..
James Oberg's Pioneering Space
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.4k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0