Cody Wilson, man behind first 3D gun, defends private ownership of biological weaponry [on On The Media]

It has been announced that the world’s first 3D-printed gun was fired Sunday.

The existence of the 3D gun is the result of Cody Wilson and his Defense Distributed, a group with the sole focus of making freely distributed plans for a printable gun.

Cody Wilson is a libertarian of the absurdly-deregulatory variety. Upon reading of his group’s 3D gun success I was reminded of an interview with On The Media from last year in which he defended the private ownership of biological weaponry.

Bob Garfield: To take the question to the extreme: If you can do, in your home using technology, the kinds of things for which there is no legitimate consume r use, let’s just say weapons grade anthrax. You nonetheless have no objection to it?

Cody Wilson: I think a civil libertarian would say: Why criminalize the possession of something or the creation of something in itself? It isn’t the weapons grade anthrax that’s evil in and of itself; it’s what you could do with that weapons grade anthrax. And so, the educated civil libertarian would say you can only punish the use of that anthrax for criminal purposes, not its creation or possession.
You know, and you use the word “legitimate.” Legitimate is a scary word. Legitimate to whom? Who makes the rules of legitimacy?

I suppose I could waste time talking about Wilson’s scoffing at the idea of defining legitimacy after he just got done offering his definition of it.

I also suppose I could point out the absurdity in allowing someone possession of an item which once misused, could devastate entire populations.

It should be easy to recognize a limitation on severely hazardous materials as being a beneficial and legitimate trade-off for public safety, but such basic reasoning seems beyond those who believe the individual’s ability to own anything regardless of the potential risk is paramount to a free society.

A farewell to norms

I do this thing sometimes where I try to pause and take in my surroundings. The basic idea is that I’m trying to appreciate the moment with the knowledge that I am living in my own past, and if I focus, then I can maybe upgrade a memory to high definition.

This whole thing might sound like borderline pretentious behavior, but I think there is some defense in the fact that I’ve been doing this off and on for nearly a decade, and have only spoken of it briefly during two intimate moments.

So, if you’re reading this, then you’re basically like my girlfriend now. You’re welcome, internet.

I’m writing about this because I’ve been doing this a lot more lately. Next month I’ll be moving to Massachusetts after living in south-east Alabama for the majority of my 27.5 years.

It’s a big, risky jump and uncharacteristic of me; nearly as uncharacteristic as me volunteering personal information about myself through my writing.

In the news recently, I saw a story about a 100-year-old time capsule.

For a split second I started to wonder what people 100 years from now would think of a time capsule planted today. Then it occurred to me how much we’ve saturated our modern life in self-documentation, and, as a result, opening a time capsule probably isn’t going to have the same allure in the future.

Then I read a story about my old high school being demolished. Not that I am particularly attached to the school, but I am a bit of a sentimentalist. I’ve always found it neat to revisit things from my past, and now that option for part of my past no longer exists.

Everything mentioned so far in this entry converged with the fact that my blog assignment this week is to make a video and I decided it might be neat to create a visual preservation of the university I am about to leave behind.

Initially I had planned to record a voice track for the video. Rather than annoy future me or any others that watch this, I opted to include an instrumental version of Modest Mouse’s “Float On,” a song that is both fitting and approaching ten years old.

If you decide to watch this today, then I don’t suspect it will bring you much, if any, enjoyment.

For best results, try saving this page in your bookmarks and checking back in 50 years.

The Myth of the Good Ol’ Days

With the advent of the 24-hour news cycle, and its ability to push high-profile case after high-profile case to the front of our collective conscious, it is no wonder that one age-old fear feels more well-founded than ever: Being alive today is less safe than is used to be.

If one considers only the seemingly never-ending deluge of mass violence and sensationalized tragedies, then the case would seem open and shut. But is it really?

A look at the numbers reveals that no matter how many heart-sinking acts of violence swallow up news coverage, it isn’t enough to topple realistic, statistical trends. Only if we mistake prominence for prevalence does the claim that things are worse make sense.

Statistics released by the FBI show violent crime rates are at near-historic lows. Property crime has dropped by 30.6 percent since 1991. Violent crime, which includes murder, rape, robbery and assault, has fallen by 38 percent since 1992.

Homicide rates are currently at a 40-year low, and nearly as low as they have been in the last century, and less than half than what the rates were at the highest point.

murderratesImage Source

I can only think of two ways that being alive today is realistically worse than it was 50 or 100 years ago.

  1. Acts of mass murder are more common, according to University of Alabama criminologist Dr. Adam Lankford.

    “Counting only random mass murders with at least two casualties, Lankford found that 179 such crimes occurred between 1966 and 2010, an average rate of 3.97 per year. From 1966 to 1980, there were 20 mass killings for a rate of 0.75 per year, but in the 1980s the rate doubled to 1.8 per year, tripled in the 1990s to 5.4, and went up 160% in the 2000s to 8.7 per year. The rate could easily reach 10 per year during the present decade. If one counts attempted mass murders, the rate is about 26 per year.”
    – Matt Bewig (

  2. One’s personal tragedy is drastically more open to a national audience of nosy onlookers’ rubbernecking.

Liberty = fascism

Liberty is the new fascism, or at least in can be insofar as serving as an impediment to reasonable discourse.

I came across a gem, on an online discussion board, which I feel  illustrates the roadblock to reason posed by the liberto-fascist faithful. “The main point is that life is inherently unsafe. Anything could happen at any time, so we shouldn’t actively impair our liberty just for the sake of seeing another day,” the fearless defender of liberty asserts!

Such a claim is unreasonable, to say the least. As romantic as it may sound and feel to demand a life with full liberty or no life at all, it’s still an uniquely unreasonable position to take.

The very existence of government is an encroachment on the concept of absolute liberty(as if it were something that is realistically obtainable, or even existent.)

Even Benjamin Franklin, one of the supposed fathers of this line of thinking, differentiated between “essential liberty” and the lesser liberties, which could be reasonably exchanged for security.

There are reasonable trade-offs we make with liberty for security. A stiff-lipped demand for more or maintained liberty is as equally unreasonable as this panicked clamor for accepting tyranny in pursuit of absolute security that so many defenders of liberty pretend to hear.

There is a damn fine reason why bomb attacks aren’t more common, and it has a lot to do with far more dangerous materials being either regulated or restricted.

Imagine for a moment that bombs of all varieties of potential devastation were freely available for purchase. Can anyone realistically say that these tragedies would not be more prone to occur?

Chances are good that anyone politically engaged knows someone apt to make romantic appeals to liberty when discussing policy. One would expect those who find regulation so insufferable to lead the charge in rolling back existing safety policies, regardless of success rates. One would expect this, and there are indeed those people, but they are much rarer finds.

The truth of the matter is that, despite their cries for liberty, these people yield to a realistic preference for security when it comes down to it.

Few truly want to live in a society so full of liberty that it is devoid of security, and vice versa. Appeals to liberty, such as the one being discussed, are every bit as emotional as appeals to fear for a security policy. This is because at its root an appeal to liberty it is an appeal to fear.

There are valuable contributions to be made by people who claim to find extra value in liberty. However, many must reconcile their differences with others as a matter of degree, rather than principle, if honest, constructive dialogue is what they desire.

Compassion and proximity

The Boston Marathon Bombing, or whatever name history will eventually give it, happened just a few hours ago.

I know and feel that it is a tragedy. I also know and feel, like a friend pointed out on social media, that people around the world routinely experience similar anguish in the name of the same security we felt was violated today.

He was, and I now am, speaking of our country’s policy of drone warfare. Yes, I understand that this policy’s intention is to increase our security.

But what difference does our rationale make to the innocents wounded and ended, or their families? Is that anguish anything less than what our fellow citizens today have experienced? A good case could be made that the fear experienced by those living in the regions where targeting often occurs is markedly worse.

I say this not because I believe the experience of the Boston bombing victims is not worthy of lament by comparison.

And I’m saying all this as a matter of self-introspection more than as a questioning of everyone else.

Today’s bombings made me emotional. And by that euphemism, I mean I got choked up and my eyes did this watery, on-the-verge-of-tears thing they sometimes do when I experience empathy.

I could pawn this supposedly emasculating behavior off on a heightened sense of concern because my girlfriend attends school in Boston, or the fact that I am poised to move to the area late next month, but the truth is I’m something of an empathetic Olympian.

Despite my bleeding, Herculean heart, I have not experienced this level empathy about drone victims, even though reason seems to dictate to me that I would have more justification in doing so.

As much as I do care about the innocent victims of drone strikes, there is some relatable quality possessed by the victims in Boston.

It brings to mind a quote by Mark Zuckerberg, though the quote isn’t 100 percent equivocal to the scenario: “A squirrel dying In your front yard may be more relevant to your interests right now than people dying in Africa.”

Is it proximity? I think so, but not necessarily all geographical. I’m thinking culturally. No matter how much I’d prefer to be above it, it makes sense that I would find more in common with fellow Americans than a group of people whom I may understand, but could never know.

This realization is disheartening in two ways. Firstly, it undermines my own self-perception of objective humanitarian interest.

Secondly, this new self-perception makes whatever level of humanitarian interest I have for these people seem like a cause even more lost when promoting it to those whom are already generally unconcerned with this results of our foreign policy.

Fox News contributor Erick Erickson enjoys MSNBC when he is not being an ideologue

Erick Erickson, FOX News commentator, radio host and editor and chief of, professed his undying love for MSNBC at symposium held at Troy University on Friday.

Actually, that was a blatant overstatement, which I felt was appropriate given Erickson’s professional history.

For the last two weeks I had been familiarizing myself with Ericksons incite-full body of work, and had prepared myself for a deluge of nastiness.

I think I had a few reasons to believe that was a possibility. Allow me to give you the short list of his—his finer moments in nastiness.

But I also had reason to believe that reason was lurking amongst the dark, dark shadows of his thoughts.  This reason can be witnessed when he speaks about how the conservative anger is perceived by those outside the conservative bubble.

“I think conservative media is failing to advance ideas and stories…  The echo in the chamber has gotten so loud it is not well understood outside the echo chamber in the mainstream press and in the public. It translates only as anger and noise, neither of which are conducive to the art of persuasion.”

This might have been a good sign of a turning point in his career and a move towards fostering reasonable dialogue, but within the weeks following the statement he had already made the statement  from above about the pope, as well as alienated libertarians by calling them smug in regards to their views on same-sex marriage.

For a man that has proven himself cognizant of what techniques are persuasive, it appears he has no interest in practicing those techniques. I suppose it’s a case of “do as I say, and not as I do.”

Curious to dig deeper into his ability to discern what reasonable dialogue is, and what is not, I formulated a question to prod his brain.

It’s a very complex and well thought out question, so prepare yourself.

The question:

“Who do you believe are good representatives of reasonable dialogue?”

I was astounded as four of the people that he named are also people I’d consider reasonable: George Will, Joe Scarborough, Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes.

I know the list was just off the top of his head, but I found it  interesting  that three of the five people he named were MSNBC hosts. He also named CNN’s Paul Begala.

I found myself impressed, but after I had more time to think about it, the more it upset me.

His picks indicate to me, quite clearly, that he understands what is reasonable. Therefore he should be capable of conduct himself reasonably and without these incendiary incidents.

I have thought of an analogy for the way this experience made me feel.

Imagine you have a misbehaving child. You can be frustrated with the child, but at the end of the day you can reconcile that the child is behaving as a child.

If one day you were to discover the child had the capacity of an adult all along, then the behavior becomes something wholly inexcusable.

Have a heart (or How fact checking can save lives)

What the internet has done for the distribution of information, it has also done for the distribution of bad information.

Social media has empowered the everyman with the ability to reach large audiences in a single post. These comments on or revelations of current events are often readily accepted by people within the sharer’s circle.

The pitfalls of this form of communication being accepted as a valid source of news, and even health information, should be obvious. Anyone can share anything in what I am convinced is the Wild West era of the World Wide Web.

I’m a fact guy, and the internet facilitates that inclination quite well. This is perhaps why I have been routinely distressed by the faulty information that I witness being passed along by well-meaning friends.

One of the most distressing things I’ve seen shared multiple times is a self-administered “Cough CPR” technique, which is suggested for people having a heart attack while alone.

While everyone that shares the technique surely does so with the best intentions, the fact of the matter is that the technique is not recommended by the American Heart Association.

“Cough CPR” is meant for use in very specific circumstances, and the consequences could be fatal if an individual attempts to self-administer. Instead, individuals should learn the symptoms of a heart attack so they can seek help as quickly as possible.

It is easy to understand how such information is so easily passed along. Every year 715,000 American’s experience a heart attack; of those 525,000 are new heart attack victims.

The chances are high that most people have someone they love who has experienced a heart attack. On its face, the information is helpful, and the concern is highly relatable. It makes sense that on a very personal level people would want this information to be true.

Our hopes and good intentions can blind us and disarm our normal skepticism.

The grand irony is this: We assume that no one would blindly pass along such delicate health advice without knowing it to be valid, and then we proceed to shatter the basis of that assumption by doing precisely that.

Former Glassjaw, Thursday, and From Autumn to Ashes members announce Kickstarter for new band

Former band members of Glassjaw, From Autumn to Ashes, Thursday, and Judge have launched a Kickstarter campaign to fund an EP to be recorded with producing heavy-hitter Ross Robinson.

Members of the band take time to talk in a video listed on their Kickstarter page to address the goals of their project.

Kickstarter is a website that allows people to seek funding for projects via crowdsourcing.

Earlier this month Rob Thomas, creator of Veronica Mars, a television show that ran from 2004 to 2007, sought to raise $2 million in 30 days to fund production of a Veronica Mars movie. Within 11 hours of the Kickstarter campaign the goal had already been met. As of right now the project has raised $3.8 million, and still has 19 days left.

The band is, quite fittingly, calling itself Get Involved! And consists of:

Todd Weinstock , one of Glassjaw’s two guitarists from 1996-2004.
Brian Deneeve, formerly on guitar, piano and back vocals for Autumn to Ashes from 2001-2008.
Tucker Rule, former drummer of Thursday from 1997-2012.
Lars Weiss, guitarist for 80’s hardcore band Judge.
Derrick Karg, who is the lead vocalist of Derrick and the Black Sea.

Vocalist Derrick Karg is the only member I had no knowledge of, and listening to his work with Derrick and the Black Sea I was pleasantly surprised. I am a big fan of heavier bands enlisting vocalists capable of really singing. Glassjaw and Thursday are among my favorite bands, and though I never really listened to Autumn to Ashes, I was aware of the band’s talent.

While describing the band members’ influences, Weiss gave future listeners a hint of what to expect. He seems to suggest a heavy sound influenced by 80’s new wave. “It’s not straight hardcore, but it’s not metal either,” Weiss said.

Indie rocker Conor Oberst’s band Desaparecidos mocks Megadeath’s Dave Mustaine

Anyone who attended the recent Desaparecidos tour might have noticed a bit of audio played between the first two songs of the set.

The audio features a voice resembling that of Mickey Mouse ranting as if he was a conspiracy theorist upset with president Obama.

Following Desaparecidos’ show I attended at the Blue Moon in Tallahassee, Fla., I was unable to find an article which pinpointed the source of the audio track.

I was able to locate the audio of interest, and although not everything is perfectly audible, I was able to isolate a line of text and search for matches on Google.

It turns out the audio track is mocking  Dave Mustaine for comments he made that accused President Obama of staging mass murders in order to take away gun rights.

The audio features a near verbatim quote of Mustaine’s comments.

 “Turns out in my president is trying to pass a gun ban. So he’s staging all of these murders, like the Fast and Furious thing down at the border and Aurora, Colo., all the people that were killed there. And now the beautiful people at the Sikh temple.

I don’t know where I’m going to live if America keeps going the way it’s going. It looks like it’s turning into Nazi America.”

The Institute for Humane Studies visits Troy University




The Institute for Humane, a libertarian organization from George Mason University, hosted a two day educational seminar called “Does Freedom Matter?” at Troy University this passed weekend.

Four speakers lead lectures and discussion on several topics such as the nature of rights, politics and government.

The discussions were often framed by providing the listener with brief philosophical history lessons about such thinkers as Aristotle and Adam Smith. Other presentations confronted issues differently.

One presentation titled “The Bourgeois Era: Why Some People are Rich While Others Are Poor,” tried to make sense of economic disparities by comparing overall wealth distribution to the past, while deriding government, as well as some private, attempts at remedying problems for the third world as being disastrous and counterproductive.

Another presentation titled “How to be Ruled by Eccentric Rich Guys: Campaign Finance “Reform and the Future of Free Speech” tackled the topic of campaign finance reform and asserted that limitations on an individuals ability to promote an idea with their money is the same as limiting how much they are allowed to say, and is thus a violation of free speech.

Attendees were treated to breakfast, lunch, and dinner in exchange for attending the event. And in an note-worthy display of libertarianism, attendees were invited to a social event at the end of each day where free beer was provided to those over 21.

The narrative of the event was decidedly one sided, but questions were welcome from the audience and exchanges were all cordial. 

ImageImageBibb Graves Hall, where the event was held.Image
Attendees before the lectures began. There were approximately 80 in attendance the first day, and around 40 by the end of the event.
Daniel J. D’Amico, assistant professor of ecnomics at Loyola University in New Orleans giving presentation, about how humans naturally create functioning societies, called “Spontaneous Order.”

Trevor Burrus, research fellow from the CATO institute, giving his presentation about campaign financing.

A fitting way wash down two days worth of lectures on maverick ideals? Perhaps.