Good Samaritans Massacre

In 2011 and 2012 I was at Olympic College when they had their 2nd Amendment drama about weather or not faculty could carry firearms to defend themselves on campus. I was in security meetings with the colleges security experts, and know exactly what the technical concern was. If the teachers were armed, why wouldn't this make the campus safer?

Let us say we have an active shooter situation, in the food court in the center of a shopping mall. This active shooter is killing people at random. Now the 1st Good Samaritan pulls his firearm. Hopefully he'll shoot the active shooter without hitting any innocent bystanders, and it won't be a gruesome prolonged gun battle that kills more people than the active shooter originally intended. Hopefully. In theory, all good so far.

Now, imagine two people have guns are drawn shooting at each other in the same food court, bodies and blood on the floor, people screaming, pissing themselves, running, hiding, paralyzed with fear. Now a 2nd good samaritan pulls a gun. How does he know who is the 1st good samaritan and who is the active shooter? What about a 3rd good samaritan, or a 4th?

The following situation, which I call the Good Samaritans Massacre, is nearly inevitable now: there will be an active shooter in a public place, and the good samaritans will create a situation that is highly resistant to the survival of victims and bystanders, and the total body count will be far higher than what the active shooter could have accomplished on his own in the same amount of time. This almost happened in the Gloria Giffords shooting. Multiple people had guns drawn, and couldn't figure out who to shoot first. The active shooter was taken out - as they usually are taken out - with a tackle when he was reloading or switching weapons. (The exception to this rule only happens when the people in charge of emergency response are wielding the defending firearm, be they the business owner, security guard, assistant principle or police... they are not random good Samaritans with concealed permits or open carry agendas.)

Think about how much training it takes to train a solider of police officer to properly use a firearm. Civilian gun owners rarely have a fraction of the training it takes to react effectively against an active shooter in a public place with other civilians. Are potential good samaritans training on simulators to train their reactions to not shoot innocent people, playing paintball against others really shooting back a them, practicing fast loading and quick drawing their weapons, or even getting out to the firing range once a month? If you are in a situation like this, you are better off without an armed yet unprepared good samaritan.

I am not particularly for or against various gun control policies in the USA. I am very concerned about the very specific point I have illustrated above. The only gun restriction that impacts massacres is clip size, because usually the active shooter is stopped when they reload by a charge from a grappler. But one of these days someone is going to be enjoying a leisurely stroll at the mall or university when there's going to be a run and gun battle between 2nd Amendment Cowboys so severe and so bloody that it will take hours for the police to finally finish sniping all the good samaritans so that the other civilian lives can be spared.

Future of Transportation

The future of transportation is almost here. A lot of people are aiming at the self-driving taxi, Google, Uber, Nissan and others. If you have already used Uber you know how much cheaper it can be than your average cab ride. Two things are going to change in the near future: 1) we will no longer have to pay for drivers, and 2) we will no longer have to pay for fuel. 1 + 2 = 3) we will no longer pay for cars.

My $20 with tip cab ride to work is only $10 with Uber (no tips allowed.) Take away the cost of paying the driver and the gas, and I am betting that goes down to $5. The bus is $3. Taxis will be price competing with buses.

Solar is getting exponentially cheaper and better. Batteries, especially in cars, thanks largely to Tesla, are also getting much better all the time. It's easy to see a future with a solar powered Taxi company in the near future.

If your average cab ride is only slightly more expensive than the bus, then why buy a car at all, even if it's only a $10,000 car? That is the big economic impact of all this, is average person will have no need to own a car, and therefore won't. Inside of the next 20 years, the drivers license will no longer serve as the universal ID, because most people won't have one anymore. Because self-driving taxis will be drastically less accident prone than human drivers, not driving yourself will be considered the socially responsible thing to do.

This also means we ALREADY have enough roads and parking, maybe even too much parking. The parking we have will most likely be reformed for self-driving taxis to pick people up and drop people off. Because self-driving cars are better than humans at driving, traffic is going to be drastically improved as well.

This also means that universal internet access for ordering rides without using a human telephone operator is going to be seen as essential. A device smart enough to web browse and internet access for that device is about to become a right rather than a privilege.

My farthest out prediction is that the taxis will eventually provide a mesh network using nodes on the vehicles themselves, to guarantee this universal access. A combination of cellphone towers and vehicle nodes will guarantee that where there are roads, there is internet. Even when the power is out:

Offense Intended

This is intended for everyone. I will reference some religious material, but this post is not only for the religious.

It has been said that Brigham Young and Confucius taught something to the effect of "he who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool. He who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool." Think this through: if someone insults you unintentionally, you aren't accomplishing much and possibly risking a great deal if you allow yourself to become offended. On the other hand, if they DO intentionally insult you and you allow yourself to become offended, then you are allowing an aggressor to manipulate your feelings - and since feelings lead to thoughts and actions - you are allowing them to manipulate what you think and do.

Now think back on all that stuff Jesus had to say about being nice to people ("turning the other cheek" etc.,) or all the things Buddha had to say about being detached and forgiving of other people. On one hand that is sound advice for folks who want to live a happy life, but on the other hand it is critical self defense for any person with an agenda. If you have things to do, letting people derail your agenda unintentionally OR intentionally is not efficient.

In Moral Reconation Therapy they explain that when criminals complain, they are manipulating. A normal person might complain to blow off steam, create structural change, or start a conversation, but with criminals they are relying on manipulative behavior they used on their caregivers when they were infants and toddlers, mostly before when they learned to speak. When dangerous people say things that are intended to affront your ego or hurt your feelings, allowing yourself to be offended could be a fatal mistake. If someone calls you out personally from a dark alley, engaging in an on the spot argument (least bit turning around and going in fist first) could be walking right into an ambush... all to satisfy your ego.

I should not go into details here, but I know about this from my experience on the street. This is words for the wise in all self defense situations, be it on the street, online, in a cubicle, or on the mat, never let trash talking get to you - simply beware the person talking trash. Do not get distracted from your goals by conflicts instigated by other's carelessness or intentional opposition: