Mad Science at Home

There is a number of topics I could address this week, such as the food scandal in Europe, the spread of drones in the USA, or the rumblings of a genuine supervillain state in North Korea. However, the creation of mad science innovations at home is only beginning compared to what it may become despite (or perhaps because of) government laws. Death rays may join homemade firearms and explosives as weapons of mad scientists. Perhaps drones may be the new guns, in the sense of a disruptive technology everyone rushes to ban. Given the vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure and possibilities of destructive drone swarms, protection will be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Tomorrow's "terrorists" may lack ideology or cause, save destroying something and seeing what happens. The instability of the current world system becomes even more strained as a result. What could possibly go wrong?

Arsenal of Democracy

    "Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons." –Jeff Cooper, “The Art of the Rifle”

 

You may recall I covered weapons and policies regarding them several times in this blog. Weapons and laws regarding their use are very relevant topics for a blog regarding supervillainy. This column is an expansion on Dr. Brin’s excellent “Jefferson Rifle” essay. He proposes setting aside one specific class of firearms from registration as a safeguard against tyranny, as a counterpoint to the “slippery slope” view of gun control: the bolt-action rifle. There is significant historical background and reason for this, as a neighbors covering each other with hunting rifles can turn an urban warfare situation into a meatgrinder for conventional and modern armies. Jeff Cooper, the founder of the "Modern Technique" of handgun shooting, preferred a bolt action "scout rifle" as his ideal firearm. This was shown in countless conflicts, but most recently with the Bougainville uprising. A group of natives, angry about a polluting mine, used obsolete weapons against the forces of Papua New Guinea (and later, mercenaries and international forces). 

Regulation and cataloguing of certain types of firearms can eventually reach a point of diminishing returns. As the New Zealand government determined, hunting and sporting weapons are the least regulated of their own categories of firearms (with pistols and then semi-automatics with higher capacity detachable magazines being more regulated). “Hunting and sporting” weapons include primarily manually cycled long-arms, such as bolt action, pump action, and lever action rifles and shotguns. These weapons are hard to conceal, have a low rate of fire compared to a semi-auto, and are slower to reload. This makes them impractical for most criminals or spree killers. A criminal may try to “saw one off,” but by that point, the weapon has probably already been stolen and/or resold on the black market. New Zealand also counts semi-automatics with a fixed magazine in the sporting category, like the Mossberg 10/22, to be added to the sporting category. It is harder to reload such a system than, say, an AR-15 style rifle or civilian AK copy. Firearms such as these may be good additions to the “Jefferson rifle” advocated by Brin. Other things, such as air rifles, slingshots, and crossbows, also belong here.  

I would argue a few other things could be added to this “least regulated/unregulated category,” as even many countries with strict gun control do. These include black powder pistols, from flintlock horse pistols to cap and ball revolvers. The inaccuracy, size, noise, and awkward dimensions of say, a flintlock pistol make it impractical for spree-killings and more practical as a “range toy” or decoration or movie prop. This “historic” category could also include some early semi-automatic pistols (and perhaps modern replicas), such as the Mauser C96 or C93 Borchardt pistols, due to their low ammo capacity, awkwardness reloading, and awkward size compared to modern semi-automatic pistols. 1901 seems to be a good cut-off point, as the first Browning design utilizing a slide was made in 1899, and this date also includes designs from the Boer Wars. 

Lastly, even Russia and Germany allow for individuals to carry less-lethal weapons for defense without much paperwork. This includes things like gas guns shooting rubber bullets, pepper spray, tasers, and so forth. While less lethal weapons can kill, their purpose is to deter or distract an attacker long enough to get away. A robber may use them for intimidation, but they may do the same for with a sawn off shotgun or knife. As far as carry concealed firearms, I will cover that next.

The ability of civilians to legally carry a concealed pistol is interestingly supported by some gun control proponents, as carry concealed laws are essentially a form of gun control (requiring registration, background checks, and so forth). However, most places even the US have background checks, required training, and criminal penalties against the misuse of such a firearm. As Larry Correia states, a carry concealed permit is not a badge. Small amounts of ammo can be carried (hence why compact automatics and revolvers are favored for the task), rather than say, a higher capacity semi-automatic. To prevent issues such as the Trayvon Martin shooting, cameras may be required to be added to the pistol to record each time it is shot outside of a firing range. It is not merely humans I am concerned with. In wilderness areas, there are threats like wild animals, rabid/feral dogs, and the like that may require lethal force. This is one reason the Pacific Northwest in the USA and western Canada tend to be more permissive of firearms, given the wolves and bears that live in the wilderness nearby. Concealed carry owners have stopped a few spree killings, as may mad shooters tend to turn their weapons on themselves after encountering significant resistance. A concealed carry pistol with limited ammo capacity, a “paper trail” registered with police, limitations on use, stringent storage requirements, and perhaps a camera to ensure proper usage makes for a poor weapon for spree killings and crime.  

There is a last category of firearms which may be completely impractical to regulate or legislate, unlike carry concealed models or historical relics/replicas. That is homemade weapons. There are two broad categories of homemade firearms: the first are hobbyists or recreational users. The second one are “black market” gunsmiths. A hobbyist may indeed manufacture historic weapons, as a hobbyist can include a historical re-enactor, collector, or prop-designer. Their weapons are primarily designed for fun, or legitimate profit (such as making exotic prop guns for a science fiction movie). So long as their designs meet the “Jeffersonian” category I’ve described earlier, I would allow them to produce such devices. The advent of desktop manufacture (potentially with new technologies, like caseless ammo) may mean this could become nearly impossible to track via conventional means. If they start providing or selling weapons for the black market with definite intent, then there are already a number of criminal charges suitable for them. 

The current generation of firearms requires bullets to work, otherwise they are merely clubs. A simpler solution than cumbersome regulations could simply be tracing ammunition rather than firearms. If regulations are to be written, focusing on the logistics of the issue seems more prudent than every individual manifestation of the symptoms. My inner civil libertarian wishes to see everyone allowed to do what they want, so long as they don’t hurt anyone. As stated before, the ideas I list primarily come from Russian, German, New Zealand, and (smarter) US policies. 

As an aside, I believe ending the drug war, for-profit prisons, and the current incarnation of the American criminal justice system/prison-industrial complex will lower gun crime rates more than any bill or executive order being dreamed up now. Drug related shootings comprise about 80-85% of firearms homicide. A professor who studied the history of violence in the US interestingly found that social inequity and a lack of social safety nets is the major driver of crimes and depraved spree killings. A policy like Brin’s “Moron Act” to deny killers infamy is another sound idea, depriving bad guys of infamy. The problem is, the status quo has all the momentum of a cyberpunk dystopia, and the other indicators (climate disruption, resource depletion, market manipulations, legal impunity for endemic financial fraud, etc.) mean the emergence of corrupt neofeudalism more than any kind of democratic grand compromises or enlightened decision making.  

Varangian Arms: Sophia

"Mad Science" means never stopping to ask "what's the worst thing that could happen?"
–Schlock Mercenary 
 
A firearm is a confluence of many fields of science and technology: chemistry (for the propellant), metallurgy/materials science (for the substances used in manufacture), mechanics (for moving parts), physics (for the ballistics of the projectile), biomechanics (for the actual ergonomics/handling of it), (arguably) psychology and neuroscience (for how the person handling it actually thinks and treats it), and perhaps one day, electronics (if electronics come to displace many of the old fashioned mechanical systems). I am proud to announce a series of posts for weaponry designed as more novelties for hobbyists, researchers, movie/stage props, and "firing range toys" more than actual tools for combat or defense. In the words of Cave Johnson, "Science isn't about why, it's about why not."

You may have heard of the WikiWeapon project to create an open source, 3D printable firearm, but "open source" development of weapons without conventional patents is not a new concept. I figure the zeitgeist may be right for open source weaponry and concepts. The manufacture of the first weapons pre-dates the modern concept of intellectual properties by thousands of years. Likewise, some designs are simple to manufacture and replicate with basic tools, such that a patent cannot be easily enforced. For instance, the Kalashnikov family of weapons has long since become the de facto open source platform in the developing world, churned out in places like Khyber Pass workshops by the dozens.

So, without further delay, I would introduce you to Varangian Arms: Weapons designed for aesthetics, novelty, and curiosity rather than self defense or combat. This makes them more suitable (as stated before) as stage props, oddities for a gun range, and glorified science projects. From steampunky anachronisms to futuristic designs, Varangian Arms is based on historical, obscure, and interesting designs. If anyone out there actually designs one of the Varangian projects on CAD or actually builds the thing, I have one request: that it be put under an Open Hardware license. The abuse of intellectual property laws by rent-seeking media companies and patent trolls is something I find annoying. A few other common sense things: Obey local ordinances and policies regarding the use of these designs, since these are more science projects. Varangian Arms designs are deliberately unsuitable for criminals and spree killers. Also, avoid infringing on existing patents, since an army of angry lawyers is the last thing any field needs.

The first Varangian Arms design is a cyberpunk inspired firearm called "Sophia," specifically a re-imagining of the revolver. The Greek word for "Wisdom" ironically describes a confluence of bizarre innovations used in revolvers. Sophia would be a suitable sidearm for a science fiction character, perhaps a detective or mad scientist. "Sophia" is inspired heavily by the designs of Emilio Ghisoni, such as the Mateba Model 6 Unica and Chiappa Rhino. It should have most of the following features (if possible).

1) Most importantly, Sophia has the barrel being located at the bottom "6 o'clock" position instead of the "12 o'clock" position common for revolvers. This makes handling recoil easier, although increases the mechanical complexity. Sophia is NOT an auto-revolver, but instead just a weird "conventional" double action revolver (although it should be able to fire single action).

2) The cylinder has a few quirks on its own. It has the ability to chamber multiple calibers, like the Medusa Model 47, due to claws that lock the bullets into place. It is still designed to withstand the pressures of up to a .357 Magnum shell firing, and has 6 chambers.

3) Another feature is the cylinder slides forward when the trigger is compressed, much like the Russian Nagant M1895 gas seal. This feature allows a revolver to be suppressed conventionally, like the KGB did with the Nagant.

4) I am not sure the sliding cylinder feature would allow a conventional swing-out cylinder to be used (like in the bulk of modern designs), but there are some alternative possibilities: One is a cylinder that partially "pops" out (like the Russian OTs-38), a replaceable pre-loaded cylinder (like a Remington 1858), or perhaps even a side-mounted loading gate with spent cartridge ejector (like the original Nagant revolver).

Sophia is a fairly complex system, with the cylinder and unconventional barrel placement being the most complicated (and arguably delicate) parts. I would hope some individuals out there would seek to further the mad science of "bizarro gunsmithing," as advocated by Varangian Arms.

Democratizing Defense

 “If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual.” -Frank Herbert

Most of human history can be recorded as an oligarchy run by a small few. This may have its roots in early settlements, where a warlord of some sort provides protection in exchange for the labor of others. This arrangement is known as feudalism, and isn't a good model for those on the bottom. However, this stagnant structure was prone to catastrophic upheaval, often brought about by a change in technology. Either the warlords use them to solidify their control, someone else out-competes them (often instituting a larger model of "feudalism" in the process of empire-building), or the technology gives the peons more power to demand rights and bargaining conditions (thus forming the basis of citizenship).

The feudal arrangement only lasts as long as people feel secure under the status quo. When the balance of power is tilted in the citizens' favor, this leads to good things. The English peasants skilled with the longbow, for instance, are one reason the Magna Carta was signed into law, starting a tradition/social contract that was only recently revoked.

Warfare has become increasingly complex and specialized over the industrial revolution, meaning that an militia of musket-wielding farmers was no longer in the same league as a professional military. Muskets gave way to repeating rifles and the machine guns and assault rifles. Personal transport expanded from a soldier's own feet to motorized cavalry and mechanized infantry. To compete against a professional army in a conventional war without a similarly equipped army of your own became an increasingly suicidal endeavor. And even if you had an army, you had to constantly spend money to stay ahead. This Red Queen hypothesis meant that even a healthy lead in military tech could be maintained only by increasing amounts of funding.

Of course, plenty of forces lack the technologies, personnel, and gear to fight a conventional war. That is the reason for the rise of guerrilla tactics in brushfire conflicts across the world. The successful guerrilla does not try to kill or drive out the enemy, but instead cause them to overreact and overextend themselves. If a cheap $10 bomb causes $10000 worth of damage, that's a huge "return on investment." The overwhelming complexity of modern infrastructure is likewise at fault, presenting a "target rich environment." Such is the cold calculations of 4th Gen Warfare.

We are "fortunate" enough to witness the hollowing out of governments over recent decades. However, despite what you may think, individuals are not powerless. There are methods of fighting back that involve no violence, no sabotage, and are perfectly legal (for now). The kleptocrats (government or corporate brands are merely the same thing now) want to you be afraid of everything: guns, scientists, terrorists, your own shadows, while the things worth being concerned with are outright ignored (or worse). The methods they use are "security theater," a sort of pantomime routine to try to preemptively subdue unrest.

The battle of the 21st century is to build up  "open source" solutions against centralized incompetence and corruption. There is a philosophical background to such a strategy. If attacked politically/economically/physically (as can happen to anything truly new, potentially threatening, or successful), there should be a deterrent to such an attack. Lawyers are the current weapon of choice, as lawsuits and public relations battles can make/break political careers and stock prices. There is also opportunities for political judo/jujitsu, such as using an enemy's threats to sue against them.

Nukes and "weapons of mass destruction" may serve in a similar role for nation states. During the Cold War, "Mutually Assured Destruction" kept the missiles in their silos and troops on the borders. Likewise, there is the ancient Chinese philosopher, Mo Zi. A sort of forerunner to rationalists and consequentialis, the Mohists focused on defense and making warfare uneconomical. This was one method, they envisioned, for forming fraternity and brotherhood among mankind.

To accomplish this, they spread knowledge of defensive engineering, machines to break sieges (as in counter an enemy's siege engines), and generally make war too costly. The economics of guerrilla warfare likewise scale towards the guerrillas or "insurgency" (whether armed or not). Protestors demanding a dictator stand down can bring out riot cops and soldiers, but the operating costs of the riot control outweigh starving citizens with nothing to lose. What happens from there is up in the air.

There is another topic I would like to touch in, in the wake of recent tragedies in the US and China. The mass shooting in CT and the school stabbing in China presented examples of the pathetic, deranged behavior of spree killers. While laws may prevent these demented individuals from acquiring weapons through legal channels, those so inclined will still find a way. There's a few cases of individuals using legal weapons to stop spree killings. I hold that all have a right to self defense utilizing lethal force if required.

I believe the motivations behind spree killers may often be stress, a perverse desire for attention, and feelings of desperation. A missing social safety net (which has been thoroughly gutted) can prevent individuals from getting the mental health help they need. (Also, crime and weapons-related deaths may be significantly reduced if the Drug War was ended, but that's another topic.) Renaming those pathetic killers as "Idiot #6" or "Moron #32" may also dissuade those seeking infamy.

Regardless of motivations, I am highly skeptical of any political efforts arising from tragedies. Politicians will ride a tsunami of blood to prominence whenever they can, from the PATRIOT Act rammed through Congress after 9/11 to other ill-advised bills. Firearms and weapons bans, even if they pass, are likely to be ignored by such idiots, and the ease of manufacturing firearms will not go away anytime soon. The lethality of firearms also cuts the other way, with even the elderly and disabled able to employ them against a would be mass murderer. Spree killers are a statistical outlier in firearms deaths in the USA, as even drug gangs come in second being shot by the police.

I believe that self defense starts with oneself. Self protection, whether by weapon or martial art, is the last ditch effort if all others fail. Self defense is a variety of techniques one can use to prevent harm to oneself and one's body. Chief among them is common sense: be aware of your surroundings, don't walk into the bad parts of town at night, travel in groups, tell friends where you are going, and so on. Another one is that if you encounter such a situation where you are attacked, flee. Even if you have a weapon. Always assume your enemy has a better weapon and more skill with it, and he's got friends with weapons on the way. This is why "duty to retreat" makes sense tactically as well as legally. A method of self protection, whether a concealed pistol or krav maga, is for when running fails. This is one reason I practice parkour in addition to martial arts and shooting.

Knowledge, in the form of common sense and training, is the basis for a democratizing self defense. The protagonists of "Cryptonomicon" by Neal Stephenson create an online database on waging defensive warfare and the like. In an upcoming novel of mine, a character trains in the fictional discipline of EAST (Evasion-Assault Survival Training), a combination of parkour, krav maga/combatives, and combat shooting for when firearms are available. In the setting, it was developed by a group of Mohist-inspired martial artists and military vets. They post instructions and strategy online, free for all.

While one cannot always defend oneself in the manner one envisions (if ever), having skills and equipment and not using it is better that not having it at all. A smart self-defender will not go into a back alley and call out every shady character for a fist fight. That's behavior more worthy of a Darwin award than anything else. As the interests of the social/economic elite and general public begin to differ, we'll have to start doing more stuff on our own. So best get used to it now.

The Bloody Math of Lone Maniacs

“Moore’s Law of Mad Science: Every eighteen months, the minimum IQ necessary to destroy the world drops by one point.”-Eliezer Yudkowsky

For better or worse, we live in an age of technological empowerment. Social media topples regimes, crowdfunding raises millions, and information (and dis/misinformation) campaigns can travel the world at the speed of light. So what happens when a single depraved individual could produce a weapon of mass destruction in their basement? 

The 'lone nutcase' is often a feared figure in certain law enforcement or intelligence circles. Unlike gangs, terrorist groups, or rival spies, solitary individuals can slip through the cracks far more easily than a terror cell. A spree killer might need only a few incidents to set them on their bloody rampage. Laws on the tools they use (such as firearms, explosive chemicals, etc.) can offer little defense in many circumstances. An automatic firearm might be legally (or illegally) acquired. A bomb could be made of legal, common chemicals. And even if firearms and explosives are unavailable, there's always knives and stabbing weapons. While melee weapons offer less "efficiency" in mass murder than a machine gun or bomb, the sad reality is regardless of the grim numbers, there are likely several innocents dead.

History offers some examples of noteworthy lone maniacs, but I do not want to name those idiots or give them any more attention than I have to. However, I will discuss a few categories of lone morons. I will not cover small groups or political figures in detail, as they had staff and others with them. The 9/11 hijackers, for instance, were a small group with substantial resources behind them (in the form of their terrorist handlers and leaders, etc.). Obama's due process free hit list for US citizens and others needs people to actually compile the lists and deploy the Predator drones, as well.

The spree killings of the past few decades have included a number of high profile shooting sprees. While these have been conducted with firearms of varying legality, the general trend is so pathetic moron decides to mow down innocents. In the late 90s, a shooting in Scotland was believed to have triggered copycat attacks in Australia and New Zealand. The US suffered a spate of school shootings in the same period. These, however, were not the first attacks of their kind.

A previous mass shooting in the USA in 1966 actually spurred the development of SWAT teams, and disproved the idea that individuals were safe in public. This, however, was neither the first public massacre nor school attack that occurred in the 20th century. There was the Bath School Disaster, where a madman used explosives to murder dozens of schoolchildren and teachers.

Firearms and explosives are fairly old technologies, having been known to humankind for almost 1000 years. Laws against guns and explosives may increase the difficulty of acquiring or building one, but it's unlikely to totally defend against every possible permutation of explosive device or firearm out there. We've built such weapons for centuries, and the main limit on casualties is how many people can be gathered into range before such a weapon is deployed. This is why blowing up a plane or sinking a ship may cause more death than a single bomb or shooting spree. Some systems are innately "better" at such a task than others, which is why identifying them may be key. A concealed submachinegun or hand grenade may hit more people in a crowd than a flintlock musket, after all.

Likewise, early forms of chemical and biological warfare have been known for centuries, yet it was the 20th century that brought these technologies to horrid maturity. At first, they required a major government and industrial investment. Many of WW1's chemical weapons required factories to churn them out, so the 'lunatic in a basement' scenario would be mostly nonviable with period technology. World War II, however, saw a technology grow to maturity that could self replicate, spreading itself to a target population,. That technology was biological warfare, pioneered by the likes of Imperial Japan's brutal Unit 731 and later, the postwar governments of the US and Soviet Union. 

Of course, the atom bomb became the most feared weapon after the war (and rightly so), but production of nuclear weapons was capital-intensive. They became the Atomic 'A' of the ABCs of WMD (with Biological and Chemical following afterwards). Even maintaining stockpiles of nukes for deterrence is an expensive, complex endeavor. Materials, infrastructure, and production require a significant government investment, even with modern technology. Even though the technology dates from 70 years ago, production of viable nukes by lone individuals is still impossible and will be, given how uranium and plutonium can be tracked, to say nothing of radiation detectors and Geiger counters being used to easily sniff one out. I'm sure the War on Terror inspired the design of new generations of nuke-sniffers and similar devices, as no self respecting part of the American military industrial complex would want to miss a market like that.

With atomic weapons removed, how about biological and chemical weapons? Chemical weapons still require major investments in producing any significant amounts of it. The Japanese doomsday cult, Aum Shinrikyo, tried releasing sarin gas in Tokyo subways, but dispersion of a gas-based chemical weapon and ventilation hindered them. If it was a lone maniac (as opposed to a doomsday cult with ample funding), they would not have been able to produce even the relatively small amount they did for the 1995 attack.

What I am personally the most concerned with are biological weapons. The cost of doing genetic engineering in one's basement continues to drop. Basement biohackers might today focus on things like glow in the dark algae, but as the technology becomes more user friendly and widespread, then things get interesting. I doubt, however, total bans or requiring registration to be a basement biologist would be very effective. Totally banning anything means legitimate users (DIY biologists who could be collaborating on say, a cure to a bad guy's designer disease), will have to jump through more hoops while the maniac has none. Modern firearms have technical bottlenecks in ammunition supply and all the laws concerning ammo sales, but I imagine bio-gear to have even less of such bottlenecks. Like unregistered guns and makeshift meth labs, unregistered bio-labs could be started with even less capital and staffed with an ever-smaller number of staff. I believe basement bio-weapons offer the greatest potential for "single maniac abuse," save if someone develops some kind of even worse nanobots or something of the sort.

Also, I'd like to cover cyber-weapons. I know cyber-attacks have gotten press lately, but a 'cyberattack' is a fancy way of saying computer-enabled, remote sabotage. The key threat there is infrastructure disruption. Power grids could be knocked offline, key systems could have backdoors installed or passwords stolen, and so on. Recent cyber-attacks have targeted Iran's nuclear program and the Gulf oil industry. Any deaths from there would be an effect of infrastructure disruption rather than a primary goal. Interestingly, the US designed Flame and Stuxnet, having been deployed into the "wild," could now have their own code modified and deployed back at them by anyone with computer programming knowledge. There's also the related issue of hijacking platforms. Imagine a bad guy hacking a Predator drone (or a bunch of them) and raising hell with them, for instance.

On a related note, an electromagnetic weapon, such as an EMP bomb or HERF (High Energy Radio Frequency) device could disrupt power grids or supply to some major area, but smart and proper grounding of hardware could hinder attempts at replication. So, it's really a one trick pony, since it will be hard to repeat the trick after someone pulls it off successfully.

That brings me to my final point: disruption. I believe the most dangerous attacks in the future will integrate multiple vectors of attack. A bomb or IED might spread shrapnel loaded with a designer disease. A cyber-attack could knock out power and strand people somewhere while a terrorist group (or lone maniac) goes on a shooting spree. If the individual is suicidal, they may simply care on taking as many people as possible down with them. If they wish to fight another day, they could aim to cause as much chaos as possible. This means they drive up operational costs through economic damage and spending on safeguards. A terrorist seeking to cause disruption might not try to raise a body count, but prices of essentials. Imagine they spread a disease that kills off crops for stable foods (the monoculture and lack of genetic diversity in today's factory farms would mean they'd have an easier job of this). The result is essential foods go up in price, perhaps out of the affordability range of poor people (who are the majority in much of the developing world). Rising food prices, after all, helped start the French Revolution, Russian Revolution, and Arab Spring.

So, how to counter all of this potential for abuse and chaos? Government officials could insist they need to observe all your communications and institute total surveillance. However, this is unlikely to work, as catching every laptop full of cyber-weapon malware or basement bioweapons lab is statistically improbable. Another idea is to improve people. People with more freedom, full bellies, stable income, and social involvement are less likely to become radicalized. If one feels nothing left to lose, then desperation could easily lead towards violence. The feelings of powerlessness, lack of social meaningful connections like friends/family/etc. (a social safety net unto itself), and no conventional social safety net could easily give rise to violence. The last approach is a systems design, resilient infrastructure and systems. A decentralized system that can take many small disruptions can survive and thrive when the centralized big ones fail.

There is also a final realization: Most people have a survival instinct and desire to help each other. A partnership between political institutions and various communities (DIY biologists and open source programmers, for instance) can muster more resources than most governments can. I believe that a decentralized network of citizens with resilient infrastructure is a far better safeguard than over-relying on a professional protector caste. The professionals have their place, but they may not be sufficient for everything. This is why I believe a multi-layered net is the best counter to solitary maniacs. If everyone is empowered, then a single maniac cannot stand against the many.

The Firing Line: Gun Law

Gun control. One of the best ways to start a flame war online is to discuss gun policy, especially in the USA. Generally, there's two camps as Barry Eisler notes: Gun Control Proponents and Gun Control Opponents. Gun Control Opponents argue for the right to defend themselves on their own property or in public with firearms, while Gun Control Proponents would forgo this for their belief in reduced potential harm.

Before we proceed, I'll admit my own thoughts. I believe dangerous technologies, especially ones like firearms, should be available to the public. Governments are notoriously bad at predicting which technologies are the most harmful, and many policies cannot be enforced if there is widespread disregard for existing rules. This isn't to say there will be no policies or laws on firearms and other weapons, but less is more. Too much regulation of anything eventually gets to a point of diminishing returns, where even otherwise law-abiding citizens might disregard laws.

Now, for the sake of argument, let's define gun control: A set of legal requirements acting as a prerequisite for lawful ownership and/or use of a firearm or other weapon. Under this definition, however, even policies like a carry concealed permit in the US (being lawfully able to carry a concealed firearm on one's person) are 'gun control.' (Even if you have a gun for self defense, I would still learn martial arts, as firearms can fail/jam/run out of ammo, and may not be available at some times and places.)

A related issue is the legal ability to carry around a firearm in public for self defense of one's person. In the USA, this is known as Carry Concealed. Other countries have similar policies (although sometimes, the criteria may be stricter or looser than some US states), such as Germany, Russia, some Latin American countries, and other places. Even Canada and Singapore have rarely issued analogs. Even in the US, many of the applicants to this process require a clean background (e.g. 'good character'), waiting period, and severe penalties on misuse/abuse of that firearm. There are also legal limits (and practical limits) to the amount of ammo one can carry. Extra magazines are quite heavy, especially larger calibers. There's also a "Genuine Need" clause in some countries, although this varies by country and region.

In the US, though, much of the legal basis of the "right to bear arms" comes from the 2nd Amendment of its own Constitution. Considering as the US government now claims the right to assassinate any citizen for any reason it wants with no due process, we can assume it no longer gives a damn about rule of law. But taking a step back in time, the American Bill of Rights was largely based on another document, the English Bill of Rights (and by 'largely based on,' I mean 'copied and pasted'). It was for violations of the English Bill of Rights, coupled with the 1700s versions of austerity measures and crony capitalism, that lead up to the American Revolution. In the English Bill of Rights, we've got the line, "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."

In the era when these documents were passed, firearms were single-shot smoothbore weapons with poor accuracy and long reload times. The refinement of firearms has driven the policy debate across the centuries. It was around the early 20th century that firearms laws became more restrictive in the USA and Commonwealth, as a result of criminal activity (often banning early submachine guns in the process) and fears of a socialist uprising.

The spree killings and mass shootings in the later part of the 20th century resulted in increasingly strict laws and policies, including some rare knee-jerk legislation rammed through various legislative branches. Gun crime has decreased worldwide, but there is more than meets the eye.

Suicides by gun are the majority cause for gun death, even in the USA. A study found suicide victims would substitute other methods if firearms were unavailable. If studying the effects of suicides and firearms, the general trend of total types of suicides, and economic backgrounds of the victims, should also be taken into account. There is also the fact in the US, 85% of firearms crime are drug related. I believe that in this case, more restrictive laws is only treating a symptom, not a root cause. Legalization of certain substances, as well as treating non-violent offenders and reducing prison populations, is a better move to cut gun crime. However, the for-profit prison industry in the US desires both strong gun and drug laws to imprison more people. Even most firearms used in crimes in the US are illegally purchased or stolen from legitimate users. You're more likely to be shot in the USA by the police than any spree killer or gangster.

Even in countries with strict gun control, there is also the issue of the spree killer. Even a country with strict gun control like Norway still had a mass shooting due to one deranged maniac. The supply of maniacs like that seem to be less frequent in countries with social safety nets and civic cultures, both of which the USA has effectively gutted over the last few decades. Switzerland, meanwhile, has mandatory gun ownership for all adult males (although the military rifle is essentially treated as a 'sacred relic' and only to be used for government business). Even then, they still offer semi-automatic rifles for sale with few restrictions. Pistols, however, are more strictly regulated.

Even in a country with strict gun laws, criminal groups can find ways to acquire them. In Brazil's favelas and rural Pakistan, homemade guns are a major tradition. It's rather easy to make some firearms from scrap metal with basic tools, such as the British Sten, American Grease Gun, and the Russian AKs. Technologies that could make homemade, unregistered firearms are likewise getting cheaper and more accessible. So, what's my solution? I'm a fan of the 'freedom to fabricate' and the 'right to self defense' (even including firearms).

I prefer solutions that maximize individual freedoms and minimize the number of people in prison. My inner civil libertarian doesn't want to criminalize the possession or making of something in itself without damn good reason. However, using something for harm means you're going to be treated like any other criminal. If you ban anything that might potentially be used for evil or harm, you'd ban a whole lot of regular goods. That's why I believe online censorship regimes in the name of 'child safety' or 'anti-piracy' or 'cyber-security' are rather wasteful and ineffectual bureaucracies. No matter what the law is, there will always be those who seek to break it.

A few questions: Likewise, should the types of guns be regulated differently? How do you separate the categories? Would you regulate flintlock pistols differently than modern semi-auto pistols? Setting categories of firearms seems fairly logical in some ways, but setting the categories is hardly rational in many places. How about air guns, crossbows, and regular bows? Are you going to have different policies for "less lethal" weapons (like rubber bullets, pepper spray, etc.)?

However, there are current bottlenecks in firearms technology. One is ammo. We need brass cases full of propellant, with a projectile and primer attached. There may come a day where someone could print Metalstorm-style caseless ammo using advanced 3D printers at home, but for now, that time is in the future. As the comedy bit goes, ammo sales might be such a bottleneck, at least as far as record keeping and detective work goes. (I also imagine even desktop manufacturing might have some kind of 'fabrication fingerprinting' eventually.) Interestingly, even in the "Wild West," gun violence (and violence in general) was far lower than even contemporary American cities (as it was mostly a creation of popular media).

Currently, the political spectrum associates "gun control" and "gun control opposition" into the erroneous "left" and "right" categories. It's rather ironic that one of history's largest progressives is also a large fan of gun ownership, Mr. Teddy Roosevelt. I believe, however, that civil libertarians and shooters of all stripes might wish to collaborate on political issues in the future. There is much to gain, philosophically and politically, from such an arrangement. Imagine what the NRA, ACLU, and EFF could accomplish together even in the cesspit of US politics if they would only pull their efforts.

I believe many countries around the world use weapons law to treat symptoms, rather than causes of crime and violence. In the olden days, a journalist might travel into a dangerous place with a weapon, but nowadays, journalists are easy prey for roving death squads without guards of their own. Drug laws and prohibition empower the drug cartels that are responsible for the vast majority of gun crime deaths. Corruption allows those same criminal gangs to acquire military hardware from crooked cops or soldiers. People with no options (or think they're got nothing to lose) are more prone to 'snapping' due to social and personal isolation. I believe making medical care (including mental health) more affordable, promoting transparency, ending the drug war, and involving people in communities are the logical responses to this. An increase and diversification of social safety nets (beyond merely welfare states and families) can inhibit much in the way of anti-social behavior.

However, I understand the desire for some kind of solution, a law or policy. While I may not personally agree with it, here's a 'possible compromise' some pro-gun control friends, anti-gun control friends, and I discussed. I feel sharing the results of a positive sum experiment might be encouraging in the vacuum of real political leadership:

-Most people are able to purchase 'basic sporting' weapons without permits (or the least regulation). 'Sporting' weapons include: air guns, crossbows, bows, black powder firearms (and modern replicas), originals/replicas of historic guns (like single action revolvers for Cowboy Action Shooting or early semi-automatic pistols like the Mauser C96), single shot target pistols, manual action long-arms (lever action, bolt action, pump action rifles/shotguns), and some semi-auto rifles and shotguns (with lower ammo capacity).

-Some 'less lethal' devices are available to most citizens (such pepper spray or rubber bullet shooting gas guns). The purpose of such a weapon is to disorient or disable an attacker long enough to escape. Even 'less lethal' weapons can be lethal.

-If you have a lack of violent crime and mental disorders in your background, you could apply for a permit for a concealed carry firearm. When carried in public, it must be mounted with a camera to record each act of it firing. There's also some ammo limitations on it. A CC permit bearer has a 'duty to retreat' first and foremost, however. Lethal force is for when you are cornered or against a non-human threat (such as a rabid dog or hungry wolf). After self defense, you must inform local law enforcement what happened. CC firearms are also registered and have ballistic samples on file. Loss or theft of such a sidearm means you should immediately inform the police.

-Higher capacity magazines for 'advanced sporting' semi-autos (including pistols and rifles) and full auto weapons require clear background checks and a secure case for storage. Said case must also be wired to an alarm system in case of unauthorized removal.

-Firearms could be assembled at home without registration, so long as they are only used for recreational shooting and not intended for sale/distribution elsewhere. (This is what I call the 'Hobbyist Exemption.')

For the record, we based it on a combination of US, German, Russian, and New Zealand laws. No matter what side you are on, I hope I got your interest. There are instances of gun laws gone awry, and used solely as a means to put more people in prison. For instance, New Jersey state laws ban BB guns and even potentially list rubber bands as a 'firearm.' (Then again, NJ is hardly a good model for anything outside of corruption and organized crime.) I believe kneejerk legislation, such as something passed after a major incident, is least effective at dealing with issues like violence. The last thing we need is another PATRIOT Act or TARP bailout, after all.