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.

Secession Season: Breaking Up Is Hard To Do

“If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying “let us separate.” I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture.” -Thomas Jefferson

We may be in for a wild ride, given my surprise by recent events in the US. Unless you’ve been completely isolated from the outside world, you likely have heard of Europe’s economic woes. When the ill-planned Eurozone was being rushed through political channels, the books were cooked regarding the peripheral countries (Greece, Italy, Spain, etc.). Said manipulations were performed by many of the same characters who are now calling for austerity, privatization of public assets, and similar measures. While Iceland offers a clear solution on dealing with corrupt financial institutions, the same has not occurred in the rest of Europe. Many countries had their elected governments replaced by former bankers (such as Italy and Greece). Referendums and democracy are shoved out the window to benefit the same group of kleptocrats who caused the crisis in the first place. This is the very definition of regulatory capture, oversight agencies taken over by individuals who compromise their function. In this case, regulatory capture extends to several layers of the EU bureaucracy, US politics, and countless other places.  

Interestingly, there is another trend that could serve to counter this. If a state government is compromised, why not start fresh from a new state? Likewise, in weakened states, prosperous regions do not wish to “foot the bill” for the less prosperous regions. Regionalism can become a nascent nationalism unto itself. In regions that formerly were nations, nationalism can re-emerge in times of crisis. The drawbacks are that it can lead to racism and discrimination against immigrants and minorities. There are, however, discrete benefits beyond merely saving money in taxes. Downsizing a political regime to a smaller level makes it more responsive to popular pressures. The EU’s bureaucracy is ill-prepared to handle several different countries and cultures. Attempts to force them together result in tensions and instability. The less removed a particular group of people feel from decision making, the greater the potential for unrest. Add in an economic crisis unrivaled since the Great Depression, changing demographics, and you have potential for quite the mess. Is it any wonder why Scotland, Catalonia, and Venice wish to leave their respective countries?

Just imagine that. Scotland is about to hold a referendum on independence, and perhaps remove the “United” from the “United Kingdom” (especially if Wales gets some ideas). Catalonia has a history of political unrest during the Spanish Civil War and Franco dictatorship, and there’s still quite a bit of tension there. Venice was once its own empire, and perhaps we shall see the return of ‘Juditha triumphans,’ as its national motto. While affluent, I imagine a Second Venetian Republic’s most pressing concern would be climate change and sea levels. I can imagine the status quo and its beneficiaries, such as governments, businesses, and perhaps even covert operatives, using dirty tricks galore. They might ensure referendums fail, ignore them, or barring that, move in like opportunistic parasites via the normal backdoor deals and regulatory capture (although that would definitely take time).  

What I am surprised, about, though, is that secessionism made its comeback in the EU before the USA. It took yet another charade of an election between two cardboard cut-outs to get people talking secession again. Also unsurprisingly, there are many of the old Confederate states. How much of this is serious talk, and how much is partisan inspired post-electoral posturing remains to be seen, however. I have a feeling this is much more that latter than the former (at least at this stage). 

Interestingly, though, these secession petitions are not merely “Blue” or “Red” states. We’ve got some “swing” states in there, as well as both. The total list includes: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.   

There is a backlash against this as well, a petition calling for anyone who signed such a pro-secession petition to be stripped of US citizenship and exiled.

I wish I was making this crap up. A lot of this just seems to be regular posing, but what remains to be seen is how much momentum or lasting appeal it actually has. There are a number of reasons outside political partisanship for preferring secession (or at least more “states rights”): the failures of FEMA compared to Occupy in the wake of Sandy (even with Bloomberg having the NYPD brutally evict them), the decrepit and decaying American infrastructure (with no one talking about fixing it), dislike of Federal overreach (such as giving away public lands to oil companies or bank bailouts with taxpayer cash), the NDAA (indefinite detention for everyone for any reason), the drone assassinations of US citizens (no due process), the warrantless surveillance, privatized prisons in league withgangs, disillusionment with the Drug War, and others. I believe local decision making would resolve many of these issues in a way politically acceptable even to the majority of people within a state.

I could see the USA possibly coming apart in a few ways, although a new era of “states’ rights” might give the polarized country the breathing space it needs. Under such a scenario, the Feds lease land for military bases and handle the major inter-state infrastructure (and a few other tasks), while most other issues are handled locally. (I had a secession attempt being averted by such a political bargain in a fictional setting.) There’s also the possibility of a military misadventure backfiring, detailed in another fictional scenario.

Still, there are benefits in the form of ending the “culture war.” Imagine, the Red States get their guns and family values, and the Blue States get their birth control and socialized medicine. There might even be unintended environmental benefit due to less carbon emissions from less frequent driving and lower demand for military manufacturing. Perhaps if the Southern States were more pragmatic than proud, they might've continued a political secession course instead of a militaristic one. There's also the fact that despite stereotypes, the "Red" states get more Federal money than they collect, so any new CSA probably would be in economic dire straits.

Apart from “Confederacy 2.0,” I could see even the “West Coast Blue” states and “East Coast Blue” states having cultural differences. (Compare San Francisco to New York City, and see what I mean.) California also has some cultural differences with Hawaii and Cascadia (Oregon and Washington), and was also once its own country. If this is more than posturing, maybe it will be again.  

Add into this confusion the possibility of Puerto Rico trying to join the USA. Still, I don’t think anyone would be sad to see New Jersey go. If the US wishes to save money on making 51-star flags, perhaps they should merely expel that toxic waste dump and promote Puerto Rico in its place. 

Seriously, though, I believe secessionism and separatism as a cause around the world will only continue to gather steam. Relocalization of agriculture, manufacturing, and energy production is likely to occur (legally or not) as the global economy continues to crash. The technologies and techniques for such methods continue to improve, a side effect of the consumer and military industrial complexes’ own developments (ironically enough). The militaries of the world realize local manufacture and production of fuel and supplies simplifies their logistics chains (which any commander will realize as key to success). Technology in the military sector will eventually make it to the civilian market, legally or not. Social change is a self-organize system, so it is logical to guess relocalized decision making will become more politically relevant. 

The corrupted political regimes will use every trick to prop the old economy up, up to and including assuming even more despotic powers. Even if they do this, there’s a limit to how much you can centralize things before they crash. “Bailouts” and wishful thinking are no substitute for your own local social safety net to fall back on. Your brain literally evolved to prefer your local contacts over some distant folks you've never met personally, after all. This isn’t just about “doomsday preppers” (a form of false security and magical thinking onto itself all too often). Rationed supplies cannot last forever, and small families/individuals without support can fail pretty quickly. Ironically, even the more savvy “survivalists” realize this, and deride the Mad Max/Rambo-esque fantasies for what they are. David Brin’s “Postman” is a good depiction of how much you’d miss being a part of a functional civilization.

At the same time, though, it is important to realize the global system’s current incarnation has no decent future. There is more debt than the world’s GDP. Median household incomes are falling across the developed world. Even the BRICs, whose development propped up the system a bit longer, seem to be sputtering out. Solid nations may splinter into smaller chunks. The climate’s going mad, and the easy to get fossil fuels are increasingly depleted (despite magical thinking and PR). Even if some genius physicist comes up with a viable fusion reactor or the like, innovation-unfriendly patent laws and a lack of investment in new infrastructure projects would hinder deployment.

Relocalization is coming, regardless of what the zombie governments want. Some may wise up on the transition, and others may not. Still, a multipolar world of several small states is preferable to a neo-feudal corporate socialist world system. The cyberpunk dystopia will give way to a postcyberpunk one, if we can manage it.

That is why this secessionist wave will be interesting to watch. Even if they fail, they could easily remerge in a few years. Once something has become mainstream politics, there’s a good chance it will last until it passes (or something close to it does).  

Of course, it could all take us down with it. It’s not hard to imagine the governments of the world using war to distract people from domestic troubles, and if nuclear superpowers get involved, things can get real ugly rapidly. Likewise, there is a remote chance of a catastrophic collapse that makes Mad Max look utopian. However, I believe the current batch of separatists will continue to use legal and political methods for the foreseeable future. Sit back, buckle up, and enjoy the ride.

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.

Open Source Alternatives

Chronicling the supervillainy of the era would not be complete without discussing methods of countering it. Trying to work within the system for positive change nowadays is mostly a the soul-crushing labor and sisyphean task, given the extent of regulatory capture by the corrupt interests. This is by no means limited to Russia, China, and the third world. The US, UK, and EU are rapidly closing the 'corruption gap.' The future of the world seems to be one giant neofeudal oligarchy or kleptocratic banana republic, the pattern of most of human history.

Add in fossil fuel depletion, more crazy climate events, widening inequality, and diminishing resources, and you've got a recipe for disaster. Not merely one or two disasters, but a chain of epic failures that governments and institutions will muddle through without an idea. They are highly centralized, fragile behemoths, but their downfall could drag down much of the infrastructure we depend on for power, food, water, and other essentials. This is what Kunstler called "The Long Emergency," in his book of the same name. He posits many of our technologies may stagnate or be lost, at least under the current consumerist model of technological development.

As resources decay, feudalism returns, and things fall away, is there an alternative? Are we condemned to live as indentured servants, subsisting on the whims of our drone-wielding neo-feudal overlords? There are some in the works now, using an ethos that should be familiar to most hackers and geeks: open source. Open source is for more than just software, and is being applied to everything from hardware development to architecture to small arms design.These designs can be produced at low cost and using mostly local resources. Even if global supply chains break down, there's still plenty of rare materials that could be gained from salvage and old landfills.

I believe the mega-slums of the third world offer a more apt picture of the future than pre-industrial agrarianism (although local food production would definitely be back). Of course, the Internet infrastructure itself is weak in many areas, but local wireless networks are fairly viable. Even with diminished energy resources, the generation of electrical power itself could be changed to a local scale (backyard mini-turbines, rooftop solar cells, even century old designs based on 'water-wheel' style electric turbines in streams could work). Of course, those methods would be unable to power a regular American style McMansion filled suburb in the middle of summer or winter, but you would probably not need that much power for these machine shops (AKA hackerspaces or makerspaces). These machines would be built to last, rather than built to break down after a year. There are more engineers, scientists, technicians, and hackers alive today than any other point in history, so even if there's a mega-disaster, some are statistically likely to survive.

That said, open source hardware and software is one of the best things for a free market. A constantly improving free system provides a baseline from which competition can occur. Many 'less complex' machines I refer to have had their patents expire decades ago. This means more manufacturers can make parts or their own variants on old designs. Take the firearms market, for example. In the USA, the M1911 pistol (that classic century-old .45 ACP design by John Browning) and the AR-15 (based on Eugene Stoner's AR10) are common amongst shooters. This is because the patents have expired, and there is a veritable market of custom parts and specialized models for every conceivable niche. From concealed carry firearms to sporting ones to military and police versions, the possible combinations and permutations on those designs are limitless. And let's not forget the most common "open source" firearm, the AK47, which is still manufactured in Russia as well as in caves with a box of scraps. AKs are built pretty durably, one reason they'll probably outlive many of the people using them. While many an internet forum has had flame wars on the AR15 vs. AK47, there are now enough after-market parts and custom variations to essentially make stereotypes about both obsolete.
 
There are already promising signs of this relocalization of life, but they're off the radar of the mainstream media and most politicians. They want to preserve the globalized, corporate socialist world they've built for themselves. They still have the power to do great harm, mostly in the form of trying to delay the inevitable and destroying alternatives at birth. This is not due to malice, but rather incompetence. Most politicians are concerned with staying in power (whether they were elected or not), and would rather not shake the boat so much, so to speak. The truth is, we don't need them. True change comes from bottom up, not some corporate or government policy (like there's much difference between them any more).

A decentralized, democratic group of citizens are probably one of the best defenses against such neo-feudal kleptocrats taking over. That was Thomas Jefferson's vision for the US (self sufficient, educated civic-minded citizens), ironically enough. Looks like that has to be relearned the hard way. If you want to get involved in building this new future, I recommend seeing if there's a hackerspace near you. I also recommend John Robb's excellent Resilient Communities site. Learn to code, fix something yourself, maybe grow a garden. You won't be totally self sufficient, but that's not the point. You're diversifying your own skills to better prepare for your future. Don't go gently into the long night. 

The Septic Tank

It's the week of the US Presidential election, and a perfect time to cover some political topics. The American political system is one of the great tragic comedies of the era. Countless blogs around election season complain about the lamentable state of the superpower's politics, but for wildly differing reasons. I find myself becoming increasingly apathetic to the entire affair. Professional wrestling and reality TV seem to offer more intellectual substance than the horse-race between Obama and Romney. The rest of the world sees the Presidential Freak Show in the same manner that Americans see shows like "Jersey Shore" or "Jerry Springer," a grotesque spectacle of human bilge rats to gawk at. American politics has become a septic tank, where the biggest turds float to the top. You need only look at the Democratic and Republican frontrunners. 

The 'debates' (a term I use loosely) between Obama and Romney have the questions agreed upon and the answers given in the form of a campaign speech. Pepsi and Coke have more differences than Robamney.  The only real policy debates occur between candidates the system is rigged against on a non-mainstream Russian network in the USA. The elections, though, do offer a great look at supervillainy in action, to a degree that Blofeld would envy.

Guns, abortion, environment, education, gay rights, and other 'swing issues' are used to keep an increasingly irate public divided. The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have been coopted by the status quo or purposefully ignored. The Demicans and Republicrats run a two headed system, rigged to benefit them, as well as the defense contractors, oil companies, mega-banks, and other corporations that rely on corporate welfare and no-bid contracts from the government. If this is the best government money can buy, I can easily imagine wanting a refund.

Now, where did it go wrong? You could go back decades, perhaps Nixon going off the gold standard (amongst other things), perhaps Reagan doubling the government deficit (turning the USA from the world's largest creditor nation to world's largest debtor nation), perhaps Clinton repealing Glass Steagall (allowing banks to become casinos), perhaps Bush Jr and Cheney launching the War on Terror (accelerating the trends towards an imperial police state).

Obama came to power promising change, and unlike his predecessor, was able to string together coherent sentences and had a professional veneer. He was, however, a professional lawyer and machine politician, as much a part of the system as Dick Cheney. His campaign promises about 'change' and 'hope' sounded convincing and he certainly had the power to repeal and end many of the excesses and abuses of the War on Terror. The PATRIOT Act, Gitmo, Iraq, the drone wars, and many of the other things could've been ended by a President with a majority in Congress and increasingly imperial powers.

Instead of stopping them, he expanded them and added his own. Obama's declaration to close Gitmo had little to do with freeing those who where indefinitely detained there and more about transferring them to the US mainland, the so called "Gitmo North." Obama eagerly expanded the drone strikes, including into countries where Al-Qaeda had less than a token presence.

If anything, drone warfare and due process-free assassination will be Obama's legacy. He used them against a US citizen and his 16 year old son (as well as countless bystanders who were re-labeled as 'militants' after death and even against medics and firefighters who'd arrive to help victims after a drone strike). And that's just the few targets we know of due to journalism and leaks. Anyone could be added to Obama's 'disposition matrix' without their knowledge, without evidence, without charges, and without ever knowing you're on a list to be disposed of. The fact these matrices are generated partially automatically could become fully automated in time, essentially removing even the need for conventional death squads and assassins. Drone technology is getting cheaper, more lethal, more precise, and can be controlled by a smaller number at the top. The perfect weapon for a single emperor or ruler.

There's also Obama's eagerness to rush questionable legislation through. Need I bring up the charming National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law on New Years and allowing the military to indefinitely detain ANYONE (even US citizens on US soil) on suspicion alone? Or how about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a "free trade" agreement that reduces national sovereignty to the whim of corporate lawyers. Or perhaps his rush to war in Libya without consulting Congress and eagerness to arm questionable militants (including a previously listed terrorist group, MeK in Iran)? It's not like the USA arming questionable militant movements has ever backfired, right? The cherry on top of the mess is Obama's whistleblower prosecutions, aimed at cowing dissent in the ranks. Let's not forget some other incidents, such as using taxpayer money to arm Mexican drug cartels in a botched "Fast and Furious" operation, giving away public land for fracking (amounting to a taxpayer funded subsidy for oil and gas firms), love for Citizens United (allowing corporations to donate infinite amounts of cash to any politician), or failure to prosecute criminal bankers like John Corzine (who 'misplaced' a billion or so dollars worth of investors' money).

I'm sure many of these incidents are merely symptoms of a larger systemic crisis. There is no political solution for much of these problems, especially at the Federal level. The fact Romney is eager to assume most of these powers is telling the 'alternative' is little better. Romney shifts his positions to whatever is most likely to get him elected. As a vulture capitalist, seeking out and devouring other people's assets is his trade. The Presidency means access to even more resources to hoover up.

Getting back to Obama, I actually believe he fulfilled his campaign slogans, just not in the way most people think. He brought 'change' to a centuries old tradition of Anglo-American common law. He brought 'hope' to all those who desire to use the government to execute anyone they want, anywhere, anytime. Eventually, the precedents Obama sets could easily be used to bring dictatorship to the US, or at least drop the facade of representative government once and for all. I find it rather tragic that many Democrats, "progressives," and so-called "liberals" perform elaborate mental gymnastics to justify his actions. These "Obamapologists" are rather sad to listen to, as their justifications often smack of wishful thinking. Politicians (such as Obama and Romney) lack substance so their followers project what they want to see in them. The problem with repeatedly electing those soulless husks is eventually, that's all your political system is reduced to.

The empty spectacle is increasingly irrelevant to many, even in the USA. In the East Coast, many without power or warmth dread the coming of another storm. Across the country, the economic lag continues. Whoever "wins" the election will probably continue to pretend the status quo is fine, but the reality on the street will become increasingly distant. Obama and his ilk will continue to thrive in their own isolated enclaves of unreality. Still, you have to give the man some credit. He's established himself as a supervillain in his own right, using nothing but a silver tongue and honeyed words. I'm certain whoever comes next will also be.

Relocations and Blog

It's been almost 6 months since I left to study in a new country, traveling to a broken city at the edge of the world to unravel the secrets of the human mind. In the meantime, I've decided to start blogging about some of my favorite topics: technology, power, and the systems upon which both depend and are used. I've entitled this blog "Practical Supervillainy" for reasons that will become obvious.

As stated in John Robb's "Brave New War" and his "Global Guerrillas" blog, modern technologies empower individuals and small groups to conductive extremely disruptive attacks on systems most of the developed world depends on. The other side to this is development of technologies allowing more resilient, disruption-resistant infrastructure. I'll be discussing these, but also the rapid growth of "alternative economies" and failures of existing ones.

I'm an engineer interested in the performance of systems, including political and economic ones. To understand a thing is to know how it might be destroyed. After all, you can't improve a design if you don't know what the failings and strengths of it are. There are countless blogs on failings of economic and political systems, as well as countless tech blogs. What I'm going to bring to the table is my perspective on how the human mind uses society and technology as tools and weapons for its own ends, even subconsciously. It's hardwired into all of us, to use for good or evil. I'm going to post my own thoughts and scenarios, based on my reading of neuroscience, history, politics, and technology.

The potential for supervillainy has never been greater, whether from individuals or states (or individuals in states). I'm going to cover some of the more practical manners, the hows and whys of how machinery from gadgets to bureaucracies could be used, abused, and countered. My inner science fiction geek will definitely enjoy this, and hopefully, you will too.