8 ms·

> Nobody is claiming they were banned because guns are absolutely, intrinsically bad. It's just that the safety tradeoff didn't seem good enough. I was making

> Nobody is claiming they were banned because guns are absolutely, intrinsically bad. It's just that the safety tradeoff didn't seem good enough. I was making a (what I thought was) very thinly-veiled commentary on the current political discourse regarding guns in the media. > I suggested the presence of the gun, especially in light of recent space team psychological problems, might be an invitation to a future disaster. And this is just poor reasoning and political grandstanding from the author. The author wants to feel like he accomplished something really meaningful, and is patting himself on the back for it. These people can be trusted to travel to space and depend on each other for survival out there, but the presence of a very scary gun is the breaking point of where they can't be trusted anymore? At some point, you either trust someone or you don't. If I couldn't trust a colleague with a gun, there's no way I would be traveling to space with them, because either way my life would be in their hands. Edit: from another comment, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bears-eat-wealthy-couple-and-pilot-after-helicopter-crash-in-wilderness/ar-AAZJDWR https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bears-eat-wealthy-coupl...

maest 4y ago
> I was making a (what I thought was) very thinly-veiled commentary on the current political discourse regarding guns in the media. Sure, but by doing that you were insinuating the only reason the author fought against guns in space (and won), was due to some irrational absolute fear of guns. The point I was trying to make is that the drivers for that decisions were more nuanced - there are tradeoffs when allowing astronauts to carry guns: they need to be trained, there _is_ an increase in accidental or intentional gun discharge, procedures have to be developed and maintained regarding gun storage and usage, increased storage weight etc. You can argue against each one of these cons (and you may well be right, although I don't think that would be immediately apparent), but that's beyond my point. My point was simply that the decision was more nuanced than "I'm irrationally afraid of guns".

maest 4y ago

> I was making a (what I thought was) very thinly-veiled commentary on the current political discourse regarding guns in the media. Sure, but by doing that you were insinuating the only reason the author fought against guns in space (and won), was due to some irrational absolute fear of guns. The point I was trying to make is that the drivers for that decisions were more nuanced - there are tradeoffs when allowing astronauts to carry guns: they need to be trained, there _is_ an increase in accidental or intentional gun discharge, procedures have to be developed and maintained regarding gun storage and usage, increased storage weight etc. You can argue against each one of these cons (and you may well be right, although I don't think that would be immediately apparent), but that's beyond my point. My point was simply that the decision was more nuanced than "I'm irrationally afraid of guns".