Тег: Weapons

What is the point of inhibitor weapons and what makes them better than classic lethal ones?

Unfortunately, our skeptics still may not understand the fundamental point of the idea about developing combat means to enhance the violence inhibitor. They suggest “don’t waste time,” develop a classical army and invest in traditional lethal weapons. But let’s break it down – why they are wrong.

1) Increasing mobilization potential by several orders of magnitude – unlike what is typically observed with soldiers armed with lethal weapons, drones with this means in the sky will not be shot at, even by those possessing a strong variant of violence inhibitor from birth! And this is even more relevant to opposition forces than armies of states, because among anti-authoritarian people there will be fewer psychopaths willing to kill easily than in the security structures protecting the status quo.

2) Greater public support and less outrage about brutality from sympathizers, which is especially important for a weaker side.

3) The possibility of using inhibitor means in civilian life against domestic abusers, unlike the complete uselessness of classical weapons like tanks and artillery during peacetime (billions are spent on their production, maintenance, and crew training annually from taxes, and this does not benefit society at all, and it is particularly burdensome for more free societies compared to authoritarian ones).

4) Safety of manufacture for the manufacturers themselves – inhibitor drugs cannot accidentally explode during manufacturing, transport or storage; even accidental exposure to workers will do them no harm.

5) Even cluster munitions (CMWs) can be humane. Replicable (“contagious”) vector vaccines have already been tested on animals and their effectiveness was recognized, meaning there are no technological barriers for developing “contagious” gene therapy to enhance the violence inhibitor. Of course, this is a very risky solution, but believe me, anyone would rather catch a “new cold” than be defeated by classical CMW types like nuclear or VX gas.

6) Extremely low cost and simplicity of production of the dose of the inhibitor drug. Of course, developing the first dose may cost billions and require complex equipment, but the cost of reproducing each subsequent one will be on the level of the current cost of doses of popular vector vaccines. The need for equipment and materials to reproduce is not comparable to the equipment needed to produce classical weapons (the equipment easily fits in an apartment, while factories producing artillery shells or tanks occupy square kilometers and are easily vulnerable to air strikes).

7) Extremely small weight of the “combat part” and little energy is required for successful defeat (it’s enough to pierce the skin anywhere on the body). In theory, it’s possible to create a drone the size of a bee, which is already a real technology – not science fiction!

8) Humane mines with no demining problems – after the war, classic mines can remain dangerous for civilian populations for many decades, while inhibitors in traps are quickly neutralized by environmental factors.

As a final note – why not tranquilizers to temporarily sedate the enemy? Indeed, science fiction often features plots where instead of lethal weapons, darts with tranquilizers are used. However, in real life and especially in combat conditions, this is difficult to implement because even a small dose of any tranquilizer won’t have an effect, while too large a dose will be fatal, and the dose needs to be calculated for each person individually, primarily taking into account their body weight. On the other hand, for most inhibitory drugs, the therapeutic window (a “dynamic range” when the dosage already gives an effect but is not yet lethal) will be extremely wide, and one dosage can be boldly applied to any person.

VoluntaristBitarch

Weapon bans – for the sake of humanism or dominance?

Have you ever noticed how great powers suddenly become “humanitarians” when it comes to weapons and methods of war? On paper, it all looks beautiful: “we ban chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons because we are good.” But let’s look at this whole affair without rose-colored glasses. Doesn’t it seem to you that such bans are not at all about concern for humanity, but a clever trick to maintain the global hierarchy? It’s as if the world boxing champion banned all opponents from using their left hand. Why? Because it makes it easier for him to win!

Take, for example, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Five countries (USA, Russia, China, France, UK) officially gained the right to possess nuclear arsenals. The others were told: “You can’t! It’s dangerous!” Why? Because when you have an atomic bomb, no one risks touching you. Recall the fate of Libya: Gaddafi abandoned his nuclear program, and then his regime was blown to smithereens. North Korea, in turn, decided to avoid this, and now Kim Jong Un has nuclear weapons, and for some reason, no one is bombing him. Or take chemical weapons. For decades, the USA turned a blind eye to the chemical attacks of Saddam’s ally against Iran, but suddenly remembered these atrocities when Iraq stopped being a friend. It looks like selective amnesia.

But it’s even more interesting with the rules of warfare. According to international laws, rebels are forbidden from hiding among civilians. It seems reasonable: fewer casualties among the civilian population. But what is a poor partisan to do if the enemy has drones, satellites, tanks, and aircraft? Go out into the field with an open visor? That’s a guaranteed one-way ticket. It turns out that the great powers tell the weak: either fight by the rules and be guaranteed to lose, or fight as best you can and you will be declared terrorists.

By the way, it is interesting that “legal terror” is only available to the state. The carpet bombing of Dresden in World War II, the nuclear strike on Hiroshima, NATO missile hits on Belgrade bridges and the television center in 1999—these are not terrorism, but “military necessity.” But one explosion by rebels is already a terrible sin. Of course, no one here is justifying violence against civilians, but why can the state do such things while a rebel cannot?

Let’s also remember humanitarian law in conflicts like Afghanistan or Iraq. Western countries always emphasize that they fight “cleanly” and by the rules. But as soon as the rules get in the way, they are easily forgotten. Remember Abu Ghraib? Torture and abuse of prisoners who were “unlawful combatants.” The rules exist, but we don’t apply them to you because you are “not dressed in uniform.”

And then there are psycho-chemical weapons—substances that are meant to selectively and temporarily affect the brain without causing long-term harm to the enemy’s health. A typical example is the incapacitant BZ, which the USA experimented with during the Vietnam era. Officially, it is a “non-lethal means of suppression,” but in a large dose, it turns a person into a helpless zombie. Or take the opioid hybrids used in 2002 during “Nord-Ost”: hostages were put to sleep with a fentanyl-based aerosol—130 people suffocated, yet formally this is not a “combat toxic agent,” but a special tool. Convenient: when the strong need magic dust, it is an “anti-terrorist gas,” but if the weak try to do the same, they instantly become violators of all conventions.

Supporters of humanitarian law say: “Yes, the rules are imperfect, but at least there are some standards.” But if the rules work only in one direction, the question ultimately arises: could it be that they were created not to protect the weak, but to maintain the balance of power in favor of the strong?!

P.S. When authoritarians call libertarians “free-riders,” suggesting we demand that everyone “for free” agree with our “wants” (observe the NAP), they should realize that non-interference in their nervous system, for example, using drugs for forced reinforcement of the violence inhibitor, is self-restraint and a final attempt to peacefully establish a dialogue, not a technical impossibility!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

A little more about folk dances

Several remarks were made regarding the previous post. As a rule, they ignored the fact that the post was an answer to the question “what do I think about the idea of masking military training with all sorts of harmless simulations?” and assumed that I was answering the question “how to secretly create an army from the state” or “how to secretly upgrade personal self-defense skills from the state.” My answer boiled down to the fact that if one is going to practice something like that, one should at least mask modern military affairs, rather than the tricks of the century before last, not to mention even more archaic ones.

The most famous case where people, under conditions of a ban on armament, masked military training with folk dances, was given the name “Boxer Rebellion” by Europeans. The rebellion was moderately effective against its own government, but not against the advanced foreign powers that intervened in the fray.

No one doubts that a small volunteer army, even a highly motivated one, will be completely helpless in field battles against even slightly competent state troops possessing heavy weaponry, especially long-range weaponry, especially high-precision weaponry, and especially if these troops are indifferent to causing collateral damage. But the point is not about armies in general, but about individuals.

First, someone who has mastered the skills of using various types of drones is already in a position to wage their own personal guerrilla war against personal enemies, whether they be government officials or private individuals. Explosive devices suitable for dropping from drones or attaching to FPVs are available for purchase in small quantities on the darknet or through other methods used by local gangs for their own skirmishes. We might simply not recognize a modern-day Gavrilo Princip, because he would have no need to approach within identification distance to use his weapon.

Second, in a situation where you decide to assist a state defending against an external invasion, what would you prefer to answer at the recruitment point where you go to sign up as a volunteer? “I am a good shooter” or “I am a good drone pilot”? Which answer will allow you to live longer and be of more use?

There is no doubt that folk dances are beautiful, and even a little useful, but they are very wasteful

Throughout human history, there have been many instances where an unfree part of society turned tools of labor into weapons and masked forbidden training as ritual dances. What does Ankap-chan think of this practice in relation to our time and gun control laws?

Moskvich

There is no more useful weaponized hobby for libertarians of all ages today than model aircraft clubs, drone piloting competitions, and similar completely harmless things. In Montelibero, there are already talks that a shooting club is, of course, a pleasant hobby, but how about teaching children to fly? Children are already learning this, of course, but not systematically enough; the ritual dances need further development.

Another useful type of ritual dance is the creative application of such a convenient agricultural tool as artificial intelligence. When a flying buzzing box autonomously combs through the mountains, finds a person lying in an inconspicuous crack, and carefully drops something useful to them—say, a first aid kit or a bottle of rakia, so they can tidy themselves up and hold out until rescuers arrive—that is extremely in demand for Montenegro. And why autonomously? Because in the mountains, you can’t ensure a stable radio signal; the slopes work no worse than some kind of EW device, such is the misfortune.

As for the harsh Olympic disciplines passed down from our ancestors, such as javelin throwing, we will leave those to the statists; let them continue preparing for the last war.

This girl is a bad dancer; you should look at the screen, not at the drone.

Carrying weapons is absolutely normal behavior, if it is not done for the purpose of committing crimes

Quite interesting results were demonstrated by studies examining the link between carrying and using weapons and a person’s psychopathic predispositions. For instance, high scores in callous-unemotional traits among adolescents are linked to more frequent weapon carrying, regardless of any extraneous factors, and its use in committing crimes. Additionally, the presence of certain psychopathic predispositions in an individual, especially emotional coldness and antisocial behavior, is linked to the illegal use of weapons and a tendency toward violent confrontations.

However, the first study notes that adolescents with low callous-unemotional trait scores may also be inclined to carry weapons, but this is not associated with committing armed attacks and often occurs simply because their peers also carry weapons—they are merely succumbing to their influence. The second study notes that legal weapon carrying, associated with legal motivations for such behavior (for example, ensuring self-defense), has no connection to psychopathic predispositions.

Such results lead to the conclusion that carrying a weapon not for the purpose of committing an attack is absolutely normal behavior, which does not indicate the presence of any mental abnormalities, including psychopathic predispositions arising from the dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism that make a person capable of easily harming others. Therefore, there is simply no reason to fear a weapon in the hands of an average individual, if this suddenly causes anyone fear. Nor is there any reason to listen to those who will claim that a normal person has no need for a weapon.

Also, let us not forget that a mentally healthy person will try to possess a weapon legally, if possible. Here, it is worth noting a long-established fact immediately – weapon bans only affect law-abiding citizens, depriving them of the ability to effectively defend themselves against attacks. Such people will not be inclined to acquire weapons if there is no legal way to do so. At the same time, psychopaths will prefer illegal weapons regardless, which they will obtain on the black market or manufacture themselves. Think about it – it is unlikely that a person who anticipates that they might commit a violent crime with some probability, or has even planned it in advance, will use legal weapons that can be traced. And with illegal weapons, a psychopath will be able to easily attack ordinary people if those people do not have a legal right to armed self-defense.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Alternatives to the right to carry a pistol

I’ve noticed that almost all answers to the question “how will it work?” boil down to “gun law.” If anything goes wrong—shoot, and figure it out later. If you break the law (which doesn’t exist, meaning you just seem like a bad person to someone)—you’ll be killed. Don’t want to pay a court judgment—shoot your way out, but the plaintiff can hire a private special forces squad against you. And so on. The principle of proportionality of punishment is somewhere far off, but the right to shoot is right here. Everything indirectly leads back to the idea that “whoever has the gun is right.” Wouldn’t it be better to organize a social order where such situations are prevented in advance and long before they happen?

Muscovite (not Chinese)

To start, I’ll note that the status quo is exactly as described in the question: the principle of proportionality of punishment is somewhere far off, while the right to shoot is right here. Therefore, whoever is armed can easily dictate their will to those who are unarmed. Anyone could be armed—a bandit, for instance, or a cop. If he uses a weapon with particular cynicism, there’s a chance he’ll be reprimanded, fired, or given a suspended sentence after the fact; even if it’s a real sentence, it is, one way or another, a delayed punishment that in no way prevents either the already occurred outrage involving the use of weapons or new similar actions.

Ancap differs from the status quo in that everyone has the right to own a weapon, everyone can use it, and whoever wants to dictate their will to a randomly chosen victim by threatening them with a weapon risks encountering armed resistance not only from the victim but from anyone else. Can it be said that under ancap, whoever has the gun is right? Well, then we would have to admit that everyone who bothered to bring a gun is right. Even so, this seems more attractive to me than a situation where “the one who decided to use armed violence is right, and the others are unarmed, disenfranchised cattle.” But anyway, enough about ancap, the question is about a hypothetical society without “gun law.”

The first idea is the most obvious. No guns—no gun law. Alas, if you deprive society of guns, you simply get brass-knuckle law, knife law, or even just fist law. Not to mention the possibility of plowing into a crowd with a truck.

The second idea is the creation of a smart environment in which any violence is suppressed by technological means so quickly that you can barely manage to exercise your “gun law.” Among sci-fi writers, I read a description of such a society by Lem, but I didn’t like it: it exaggerates too much; instead of serious forecasts, it becomes a kind of parody that discredits the idea. I can only note that this path implies enormous trust in technological solutions. If we don’t leave them to state monopolies and allow private entities to independently design solutions in this vein, we could very well end up with numerous commercial zones where a high level of security is ensured purely through technological means.

The third idea is being actively pushed by Bitarch. He proceeds from the premise that there is nothing terrible about self-defense, but the inclination toward aggressive violence is something that can be worked on. To take away a person’s desire to attack is far more humane than killing. What can be said here? For me, the moral status of a “vaccination against violence” is roughly the same as the moral status of any other vaccine. If you can ensure mass testing and vaccination through non-violent means—well done. If you can’t—prepare for acts of mass disobedience, lawsuits, and an extremely poor reputation for your proposed solution.

So, in short, those are the options for replacing a “gun law” society that came to mind. Do you have any others? Describe them in the comments.

You stand there and wonder: am I right enough, or should I tuck a couple more guns under my crinoline?

Is it legitimate to sell weapons to a mentally ill and potentially dangerous person?

If it is illegitimate, when exactly does it become illegitimate: at the moment of sale, or when that same unstable person commits a crime?

Ancapman

We are, of course, considering ancap, because under a state, this issue is resolved through political games surrounding regulations, and we are interested in what is the correct way.

Ancap is a free market plus the decentralization of law enforcement. The market means that the seller decides for themselves to whom and for how much to sell a gun. Anarchy means that conflicts are resolved on an ad hoc basis.

A psycho wants to buy a gun. The gun owner wants to sell it. A bystander fears that the psycho will shoot someone and would like the gun not to be sold to him. In other words, he has a conflict with the seller. But how will this bystander know that the buyer is a dangerous psycho? Do we have a society of total control, which is dreamed of by the author of the book Practical Anarchy, Stephan Molignon?

Of course, it is easy to imagine a society where all the dangerous psychos are known. This is a village or a small town where everyone knows everyone. This one isn’t a psycho, but a harmless hippie; he’s skating on the promenade. But this one is constantly shouting at his wife, and it seems there are fights. And when someone tries to reason with him, he becomes even more agitated and spews incoherent threats. Maybe he shouldn’t have a gun? And the owner of the only gun shop in the area would prefer not to take on extra responsibility. Or he sells it carelessly, and then tomorrow at the barbershop, he’ll be asked if he’s an idiot.

But people, you know, sometimes choose to live in megacities for some reason. Will megacities remain under ancap? I fully assume so: people cluster because many types of offline businesses have a significant positive effect of scale, and they will continue to have it even in the absence of state regulations.

In a megacity, generally speaking, all people look the same to each other. A gun can be sold in a thousand places. No one will voluntarily chip in to maintain a complex system of weapons registration and total medical examination, which means there won’t be one. Therefore, let’s simply accept as a fact that under ancap, any solvent psycho will always find a way to buy a gun, including anonymously, and even that loudmouth from the small town can easily do it simply by going to a megacity.

How to protect oneself from the consequences? In a small town, it is much easier for a dangerous psycho to be refused an apartment rental. He will be forced to move from time to time until he settles in the outskirts, where landlords won’t constantly receive complaints about their tenant. In a megacity, it may be unclear who to complain to about a violent neighbor, because generally, you simply don’t know who owns the neighboring apartment. But if it’s very irritating, you can, again, move yourself to a more decent district where more attention is paid to the peace of the residents.

Well, if the violent psycho does get a gun and intends to use it, the situation becomes very simple: get your own and neutralize the psycho. Or someone else who gets there first will do it. There is no time here to reason whether it was legitimate to sell that person a gun, or who to blame for the resulting situation. The probability of accidentally getting hit by a bullet is significantly lower than the probability of accidentally getting hit by a car or drowning, but that doesn’t make people give up cars or swimming.

In general, the question about psychos and guns was already asked to me about five years ago. Goodness, five years! How long I’ve been running this channel!

Libertarianism, weapons, and the presumption of trust

Mikhail Pozharsky released a very good video with an incorrect title: Why we are afraid of weapons.

It would have been more correct to call it “Why they are afraid of weapons.” Or even better, “Why we are not afraid of weapons.” I am talking about us, libertarians, or, to be less broad, about the people of Montellibero, regarding whom I am absolutely certain about their attitude toward weapons, and it is indeed as Mikhail describes.

Indeed, by recognizing the right of one’s neighbor to be armed, we thereby show trust in them. The best gift for a child is a knife. What kind of child is without a knife? In all classical children’s literature, all children have knives. Well, alright, the male half.

I didn’t have a knife in my childhood. But my first boyfriend won me over by offering to show me, right from the start, the nagayka whip he had made for himself. He was the one who gave me my first knife; how could I not melt from such trust?

And although he was from some leftist sect, and we broke up after a couple of months, this episode played its important role. Every time I hear this “you want to give weapons to everyone so that they all kill each other,” I am sincerely surprised: first of all, why “give away” suddenly? Let them buy them themselves, or accept them as gifts from people who care for them; and secondly, why would they suddenly kill each other? Are they stupid or something?

This basic presumption of trust in people is very characteristic of libertarians. If a person is convinced that people are a gathering of vices, then they cannot become anything other than an etatist, hoping for someone’s firm hand to bring everyone to heel. They say there are also religious libertarians who, considering man a vessel of sin, rely on the Lord and imagine themselves as His instrument, but that is some overseas heresy that I cannot judge with certainty; I only know that it is not characteristic of the people of Montellibero.

In general, thanks to Mikhail for the good formulations; the video is food for thought.

There was also something there about psychopathy, but let Bitarch and Voluntarist reflect on that; it’s their theme.

How weapons restrictions and bans produce an effect opposite to the expected one

Voluntarist, Bitarch

When certain political forces or communities advocate for strict regulation, or even a ban on weapons for private individuals, they invariably expect an increase in societal security and a reduction in crime, including violent crime. The logic behind such expectations is as follows: a person without a weapon cannot cause as much harm as a person with a weapon; therefore, the freedom to arm oneself represents a threat to society.

Of course, such logic is fundamentally flawed. It is simply impossible to completely get rid of weapons. In any scenario, they will remain in the hands of government agents, such as the army and police. Likewise, they will most often remain at the disposal of bandits—they are bandits, after all, which means they will not follow a law banning weapons. If they are left without “legal” ways to obtain weapons, “illegal” methods and the black market will be used. For example, statistics from the United States show that 80% of armed criminals obtain their weapons illegally.

We see that regardless of any laws, at least two types of agents will absolutely always have weapons. However, ordinary people—law-abiding citizens—will now guaranteedly not have them. And the absurdity of such a state of affairs consists not only in the fact that the vast majority of people need weapons only for self-defense and would never use them to carry out attacks. It also consists in the fact that people are thus effectively deprived of all possible rights and freedoms at once. What can unarmed people possibly oppose against armed bandits, whether stationary (states and governments) or nomadic (private bandits and rapists)? What will they do if someone, utilizing their enormous potential for violence, decides to attack them—they who have essentially no power at all?

And indeed, this has always happened in human history. Genocides began precisely with the deprivation of the freedom to arm oneself. Before the Turkish genocide of the Armenians, a proclamation was issued regarding the seizure of weapons from the latter. The Soviet government, even before the end of the civil war, introduced the mandatory surrender of weapons to the government and severe punishments for disobedience. The German Nazis also introduced bans on arming. The same situation occurred during the genocides in Cambodia and Rwanda, as well as in many other genocides.

As for private violence, let us take the same United States as an example, where 94% of all mass shootings occur precisely in so-called “gun-free zones.” According to the logic of opponents of the freedom to arm, this is simply impossible, as weapons are banned there. I will also note that it is very easy to explain why the mass shooting rate is so high in places with a ban on weapons, whereas in places where weapons are permitted, they almost never occur. Why would they happen there, if any bandit attempting to arrange such a thing would instantly receive armed self-defense from their potential victims in response?

I would like to ask the opponents of the freedom to arm—what will you do if your government, deciding to purge people it finds undesirable, turns its weapons against you? What will you do if a bandit with a pistol, or even just a knife, attacks you? What do you suggest all ordinary and peaceful people do in such situations? Obviously, no adequate answers to these questions can be given without referring to armed self-defense.

To speak out against the freedom to arm and against the natural human right to self-defense is to give a small percentage of bandits and rapists full coercive power over the entire society. An attempt to achieve greater security ultimately results in less security, if not its complete absence, because security cannot exist where some people possess a relatively infinite potential for violence, while others have neither the right nor the means to defend themselves. Private banditry and government genocides are the unsurprising result of such aspirations.

Gun laws – a tool in the commission of genocides

A rather interesting pattern can be traced in a great many genocides. They were preceded by the introduction of regulations and bans on civilian weaponry. Often, such bans directly preceded the genocides. Very convenient for government thugs and other bandits, isn’t it? To strip the common people of their weapons, and then calmly and almost without any resistance exterminate the undesirable part of the population.

To advocate for gun laws and against the natural human right to defend one’s own life means supporting the exclusive armament of a minority of perpetrators. After all, bans only work against peaceful and law-abiding citizens, who would never in their lives use a weapon to commit an attack, but only for the purpose of self-defense. Meanwhile, government agents and lawless bandits will keep their weapons regardless. Is this really what opponents of the freedom of armament and self-defense desire—that governments hold totalitarian power over people, and bandits have complete freedom to commit violence without facing resistance from their victims?