Тег: Weapons

The Myth of the Attacker’s Advantage

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The idea of universal armament and armed self-defense is often attempted to be portrayed as untenable by resorting to the argument of the attacker’s advantage. After all, what difference does it make whether the victim is armed or not if the attacker is still better prepared for the clash, since he is the one who planned it, while the victim expects nothing. And in general, few attackers will risk encountering a stronger opponent; they will prefer to choose a weak victim and bypass a strong one. The attacker always has the advantage; he is most often stronger, and freedom of armament will only give him more of an advantage since he will be able to arm himself freely.

To begin with, it should be noted that it is precisely the restriction of the freedom to arm oneself that gives the attacker an advantage. The ban only works for law-abiding citizens. If we take statistics from the USA, then 94% of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones, and 80% of armed criminals obtained their weapons illegally, most often on the black market, rather than simply buying them in a regular gun store; furthermore, 57% of criminals fear armed citizens more than they fear the police. All these facts directly indicate that it is precisely the regulation and prohibition of armament that gives the attacker an additional advantage.

And even if, after this, the attacker still retains some advantage over the victim, in general, this still decides nothing. The attacker cannot guarantee success; in the best-case scenario for him, his chance of success is merely higher than that of his victim. However, the risk of his failure in the event that the victim is armed is also high, and he will expose himself to this risk with every attack. Victory in one individual clash will not make him a winner overall; soon he will face a failure that could cost him his own life. And violent criminals make up an overwhelming minority of the population; as analysis of Russian crime shows, in the worst case, we have one violent criminal per year per 695 people (and that is considering not only murders, rapes, and the infliction of serious physical harm, but also, for example, battery). This means that, purely statistically, rapists and violent criminals have no chance of defeating an armed civilian population, or even inflicting any serious harm on society.

Why there is no absolutely-universal armament (balance of violence potential) in the USA

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The idea of leveling the balance of violence potential (BVP) so that every person could deter and repel attacks from various types of violent offenders and maniacs, as well as to ensure the impossibility of recreating a violent hierarchy of dominance in the form of a state imposing its monopoly on violence, is often criticized by pointing to the example of the USA as a society with universal armament. Since there is a state in the USA and acts of violence are very frequent there, it is argued that this demonstrates the failure of this idea. But is there actually a uniform BVP in the USA?

Of course not. A Pew Research Center survey shows that only 30% of Americans own a weapon, and another 11% live with someone who does. Among gun owners, 72% possess handheld firearms, such as a pistol. Of these, 11% carry a weapon constantly, 26% from time to time, and 57% only rarely. Summarizing these statistics, we find that among all Americans, only 2.4% of people carry a weapon constantly, another 5.4% from time to time, and 12.3% rarely.

It should be added that the distribution of armament in the USA is very uneven. First, different states and counties have different gun laws. While in Maine and Louisiana you can acquire a weapon with ease, in New York, California, or Massachusetts, you would have to struggle significantly to do so. Second, recently, representatives of minorities have been obtaining concealed carry permits much more frequently than the white population of the country. For example, over the last 10 years in North Carolina, the number of permits issued to Black people has grown twice as much compared to whites.

Overall, 7.3% of Americans have a permit for the concealed carry of weapons. Of course, considering that in 16 states it is sufficient to legally own a weapon to have the right to carry it concealed, and assuming that some people own and carry weapons illegally, the number of owners and carriers still should not be that much higher, given that according to 60% of Americans, gun laws need to be made even stricter.

As we can see, there is no absolutely universal armament in the USA, meaning no uniform balance of violence potential. And the armament that does exist is distributed very unevenly. For this reason, the example of the USA cannot tell us anything about how universal armament affects society.

On the idea of universal civilian armament

Due to the incident near Krasnoyarsk, Bitarch has resumed his reflections on balancing the potential for violence and published an article BitTorrent for Weapons, where he states that one of the most obvious ways to achieve almost complete armament is to make the cost of weapons zero. Since this is unrealizable at today’s level of technology, it should at least be as low as possible, so that volunteers could literally distribute weapons to anyone who wants them without spending too much.

He considers the following technological families:

  1. Compact projectile weapons, where weak shot energy is compensated for by chemistry. Exactly how to deliver the toxin-charged striking element is a matter of taste and technological fantasy.
  2. Dazzling lasers
  3. Neutralizing the opponent with a jet of liquid or a spray (gas canisters, water pistols, etc.)

In a subsequent note, he provides a simple schematic for a flamethrower based on a water pistol, although he does not specify how functional, long-range, accurate, or safe the design is. A video showing the assembly and testing of such a device would be much more effective, and I hope such videos will also be found.

What can I say regarding the proposed mechanism for balancing the PV (Potential for Violence)?

  1. Non-lethal self-defense weapons are a sufficiently developed industry where solutions can be found for every taste, budget, and legal framework. In particular, for Russia, gas canisters are almost without alternative as the optimal choice in terms of safety and price. They combine the advantages of compactness and cost—but most importantly, their use does not carry any serious state sanctions.
  2. Bitarch’s fantasies are geared more toward non-lethal offensive weapons, such as the aforementioned dazzling lasers. It makes sense to use them from a distance against a crowded opponent, which is why they are used during street protests. Similarly, huge gas cylinders from fire extinguishers, various homemade flamethrowers, and so on are needed specifically for street protests. All sorts of ballistae and catapults would also fit here, though they are more of a way to amuse the imagination than to win a street skirmish.
  3. In the Krasnoyarsk incident, the attackers’ main ally was the suddenness of the attack. Weapons would not have helped. Had the victims possessed a serious numerical advantage, or had they a couple of trauma pistols at hand, the opponent could have simply waited for them to fall asleep and then set fire to the tents. So, if such clashes occur in some remote taiga corner, protection lies either in publicity or in identifying the client and intimidating them instead.
  4. The idea of distributing weapons for free via volunteers is an attempt to start from the wrong place. Weapons are already cheap, and practically anyone can afford them. It is a matter of priorities. What is needed instead are inspiring examples of weapon usage—and only then, on a wave of hype, should the idea of arming oneself be pushed to the masses. People do not value what they get for free.

Who exactly will guard the inviolability and maintain non-violence in a libertarian paradise?

After all, if I am just a small entrepreneur, a local gang could seize everything I have. And there would be an unthinkable number of such gangs due to the crude nature of humans and an unwillingness to work. Am I supposed to rely only on a gun in my pocket?

Tigrenok

I analyzed this topic in great detail in the script for the Libertarian Band video on the conditions for the stability of anarchy; you can even skip reading further and just watch the video instead.

If you happen to find yourself in an impoverished society where robbery is significantly more profitable than peaceful labor, then you, as a small entrepreneur, will indeed have to rely on both your gun and a good “roof” (protection)—you will spend a very significant share of your income on protection in one form or another, and the cost of your distrust toward everyone will be factored into the price of the goods you sell, which consumers will have to pay for. Thus, your life will be poor and dangerous, and you will be seriously outperformed in labor productivity by your peaceful neighbors—and it will remain this way until a certain critical mass of people in society crawls out of the swamp of poverty: money provides confidence in tomorrow, meaning it expands people’s planning horizon. In this way, they unlearn the principle of “you die today, and I’ll die tomorrow” and switch to a “let’s let each other live” mode.

In any case, regardless of your starting conditions, you will not be able to transition to a peaceful, stable, stateless society until you are personally ready to defend your individual freedom. That is, as you quite correctly noted, rely on the gun in your pocket. A gun in a safe that you do not dare use, regardless of what happens, will not help you at all.

How will a country without a state represent itself to other states?

Choosing a private representative? An armed population is great, but tanks, planes, and missiles—who sells them, who buys them, and consequently, who stores them? And obviously, how does a private individual profit from this? Donations? Or will they offer to protect a certain part of the population? Quite strange. Military personnel will go, for example, into various PMCs and become mercenaries, but what about deterrent weapons? A private individual will be paid from the outside, and that’s it. Kaput. Cosmopolitanism is cool, but this scenario is quite real. Again, terrorist attacks carried out for the purpose of intimidation, or due to disagreement with the population based on certain criteria. Who will investigate them? Private security organizations that engage in security activities? People who are interested in what happened? Quite likely. What about firefighters, who are supposed to arrive after the fact? They arrive, but the homeowner is gone, or simply doesn’t exist because the plot of land is a wasteland. Let it burn? Will the city saved from the fire pay them via donations? “Donations” is a crude word, but essentially, if people aren’t obligated to pay for it, they will more likely pay into insurance, and the insurance companies will handle it? Consequently, each insurance company will have its own ties with firefighters, etc. Okay, I answered that myself. But as for weapons of mass destruction and heavy military equipment, it’s still unclear.

Royal hacker

It is quite difficult to answer such broad questions, so I will focus on the very first part.

Indeed, there is a rather peculiar service that seemingly only a state can provide to a person: the service of representation before another state. States do not consider citizens of other states to be subjects of treaties. They negotiate with other states, while citizens and companies act as objects of agreements. This applies to trade tariffs and regulations, visa regimes, and the extradition of criminals. How can the market respond to such rudeness?

Fortunately, states can make decisions regarding foreigners not only in a bilateral but also in an autistic mode. For example, issuing an order that products receiving certain certificates are not subject to customs duties. This means nothing prevents the company issuing the certificates from working with influence groups in those countries that are of interest as a sales market. Similarly, some consortium of travel agencies could work with lobbyists regarding a visa-free regime for buyers of certain tour packages. In general, the task looks difficult but solvable, although it seems more likely to me to obtain visas by purchasing some convenient citizenship (and the more wealthy apatrides wanting to travel there are in the market, the more various small island states will compete for them, and due to the volume, the price of the matter will quite quickly drop to a quite acceptable level).

It is more difficult with the pursuit of criminals. I once wrote about the functions of a prison under ancap, arguing that the criminal needs it primarily as a refuge from retribution. If a criminal has the opportunity to flee to the territory of a state, they effectively receive the same refuge, just without being locked within four walls. On the other hand, the state in terms of protection is a prison for the poor. That is, protection exists, but it is purely nominal. So, if someone hiding on the territory of a state manages to be discovered (which is a quite feasible and legal task for private detective agencies, which they can perfectly perform on the territory of a state), then one can either enter negotiations with them or deal with them in one way or another, since state structures are unlikely to be able to or want to protect them. Finally, one can threaten the criminal not with retribution, but with deportation to the state whose citizenship they acquired to cross the border, and there they can be judged by a state court. A mediocre solution, but threatening to hand one bandit over to other bandits for retribution if they don’t compensate for the damages is more or less permissible.

The rest of your long question is mainly devoted to issues of the use and sale of heavy weaponry. Nothing prevents a private company, operating on stateless territory, from producing weapons and legally supplying them to the territories of states if appropriate contracts are concluded with buyer companies (defense ministries can also act as such). Of course, national armies usually follow standards, and if a specific tank model has been adopted for armament, pushing through a procurement decision for another model is quite a hassle. But these are issues that are already being solved without state patronage, so under ancap, arms companies will handle this—they aren’t children.

As for the purchase of heavy weaponry by some hypothetical ancap PMCs, I personally do not believe in the market justification for such purchases, but I cannot provide clear arguments. Perhaps a few PMCs on stateless territory will go all out; after all, a tank biathlon is a quite monetizable show, something to keep them occupied in peacetime.

How will phone pranks and IRL pranks work in Ancapistan?

Will everyone really be on edge and ready to defend themselves immediately (with weapons), ruining all the fun?

анонимный вопрос

Alexander Rozov, in his recent books from the endless Meganesian cycle, painted a rather vivid picture of what unfortunate pranksters face in a society where everyone is on edge and ready to defend themselves immediately. In those stories, the pranksters took a severe beating, but since the footage of them getting beaten was broadcast live, their ratings only grew, along with their monetization. It’s a strange way to make a living, but people commit to even more serious eccentricities just for the sake of a joke.

Generally, a sense of humor is the ability to derive pleasure from the discrepancy between what is observed and what is expected (not my definition; I don’t remember where I read it). In a society where everyone is on edge, it will indeed be difficult to maintain a sense of humor in situations where you have every reason to perceive a subject’s actions as an attack, only for it to turn out to be a prank. However, the already famous prank with Vader and the street toilet is perfectly suitable for replication in any armed society. Even if the girl in the screenshot had a submachine gun instead of a bag, she would hardly have opened fire, but she certainly could have raised her weapon to see how these guys liked a counter-prank, and whether Lord Vader would wet his pants.

What to do about preventive measures under the conditions of the NAP?

I understand that this can be settled within contract jurisdictions, but how should one act in general? For example, if I see someone drawing a weapon in a public place, can I shoot first before they have harmed anyone?

Han Solo

I understand your desire to remove the responsibility for choosing the best course of action in an extreme situation. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.

You see someone drawing a weapon in a public place. You can also draw a weapon and shoot first, or you can choose not to. You don’t know which decision will be correct because you do not have full information about the situation. There are real-life examples where a person drew a weapon to defend themselves from an attack, but bystanders decided that he was the attacker and shot him. What if that person is drawing a weapon to protect themselves from someone outside your field of vision?

Therefore, a safer practice is considered to be shouting the sacramental “Stop, or I’ll shoot!” before shooting anyone—this is done primarily to inform witnesses that you did not start the attack and that you are hoping for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. By the way, this is taught in firearm safety courses, so I’m not reinventing the wheel here.

Yes, any delay before firing carries the risk that you will not be the first to shoot. But no one in that specific situation will decide better than you which risk is preferable: shooting without warning and answering for having attacked, or giving a warning and taking a bullet.

Hello, what do you think about the second part of the TrashSmash video about how civilians should not be given weapons, and that arguments for the legalization of weapons are pointless?

anonymous question

In the second part of his hoplophobic video, TrashSmash actually managed to say one smart phrase, I quote:

The only remaining convincing argument for easing access to weapons is personal freedom.

43:09-43:15

For a libertarian, this argument indeed outweighs any others. The right to own property, the right to use it for self-defense, sports, hunting, collecting, and other peaceful activities—these are above any statistical data and other appeals to public benefit.

Therefore, instead of digging into the depths of fragmented data collected through dubious methodologies for manipulative purposes at the expense of taxes, and using it to argue with another apologist for the disarmament of citizens, simply seduce them.

Just don’t take them hunting with drunken old-timers; it’s better to take them to a shooting range, let them listen to the safety briefing, fire a few dozen rounds, and hear “Thank you for safe shooting, come again” at the end. And once their fears subside, you can congratulate yourself: there is one less hoplophobe in the world.

It brings people so close!

And what do you think?

Как правильнее либертарианцам вести оружейную политику в современной России?
Results

It’s good when friends are nearby!

Famous vlogger TrashSmash released a long and pompous video about how bad state militarism is, and how we should all disarm before it in the name of peace, ridding ourselves of civilian weapons and testosterone.

The weapons faction of the LPR responded to this with a double-barreled blast: Alexei Ovsienko with a text on Facebook, and Vladimir Popov with a video breakdown of the clip. As for me, I’ll just post a thematic picture from the channel of one cool Chelyabinsk girl.

Vladimir Popov’s Lecture in Piter

Recently, I answered questions regarding weapons: about the consequences of legalization and about psychos. In those answers, I consistently pointed to the logical premises for why arming citizens would reduce crime, and also noted that this is confirmed by practice in the post-Soviet space.

Right now in St. Petersburg, there is a lecture by the well-known libertarian weapons expert Vladimir Popov, host of the channel Don’t tread on me. There, he warns against engaging in propaganda games with statistics, because crime is influenced by many far more significant factors, and no correlation between the murder rate and the level of citizen armament is observed worldwide.

Not that this is a direct refutation of my thesis, but the addition is quite substantial.

Anyway, I won’t distract you; just watch the broadcast with me.

https://youtu.be/RNkWArqmfQQ
Recording of the lecture broadcast