4 ms·

Have you ever tried your argument with s/guns/encryption/? "We just need to ban encryption. The First Amendment isn't written in stone. Or it could get some ex

Have you ever tried your argument with s/guns/encryption/? "We just need to ban encryption. The First Amendment isn't written in stone. Or it could get some extremely significant limitations added, like backdoors. People wouldn't like it of course, so it would never fly. But we need to get rid of this idiotic notion that you need encryption to protect yourself in a civil digital society. You don't. You're not going to rise up against the government, and you're not going to need it to protect your family. Are there exceptions? Sure. But when AES is so readily available, any criminal that wants one has one. The ridiculous line "if you outlaw encryption only outlaws will have encryption" or whatever, is nonsensical. If encryption is outlawed, most criminals will have a hard time finding algorithms. But all three letter agencies (ie: NSA) will still have them."

bdhe 11y ago
> Have you ever tried your argument with s/guns/encryption/? This substitution is nonsensical. Fundamentally, encryption is a defensive tool. Where proponents of gun control (and I mean moderate folk, not just the let's ban the 2nd amendment folk) disagree with others is that guns aren't just a defensive tool. Given a sufficiently large population with poor safety nets and discrimination, adding encryption in everyone's hands will not change my day-to-day life significantly. Throw in guns and things change drastically. Now I have to be worried about a dark alley mugging at night at gunpoint.
- nickff 11y ago
  Tight regulation of legal gun ownership and possession does not appear to lead to reduced gun-related deaths, (based on a comparison between state Brady Campaign score and gun deaths,) except perhaps suicide, though this is debated .[1] What you worry about is of little import to anyone but yourself (,for example, I am scared of getting hit in the head by coconuts, which are 10 times more deadly than sharks!), if you have a fact-based concern, we may be able to address it. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
  - bdhe 11y ago
    > if you have a fact-based concern, we may be able to address it. I didn't quite enjoy this dismissive tone, so I'll be more pedantic than usual. The study you cited is interesting but it's not the end all of gun control discussion. It's barely even the beginning. First, it considers Brady scores at a state level to try to find correlation. Gun control legislation might be at a state-level but that's a nonsensical level of granularity. My concerns are about my neighborhoods, poverty, and guns. Not the state of California as a whole with over 35 million people. Second, from the article you cited: > Perhaps even controlling for those factors, there will be other missing factors that are hard to control for — for instance, maybe as the crime rate increases, calls for gun controls increase, so high crime causes more gun restrictions, or maybe calls for more freedom to defend oneself increase, so high crime causes fewer gun restrictions (e.g., liberalized concealed-carry licensing rules). And of course when small changes in the model yield substantial changes in results (e.g., if you calculate the state gun scores differently, the results will likely be different), you know how little you should credit the output. Figuring out the actual effect of government actions, whether gun laws, changed policing rules, drug laws, or anything else, is devilishly difficult. is a succinct summary of why this comparison study is meaningless. It's a good retort to someone who says that gun control leads to fewer deaths but it has so many caveats and such imprecise applicability that the only useful take away point is that at a state-level with some gun-control scoring pattern (viz. the Brady Campaign scores) discounting ALL other factors, gun-related deaths are not correlated to gun control.
1971genocide 11y ago
Lets continue your hyperbolic argument. Should we give every individual easy access to ICMBs, Tanks and Nuclear Weapon ? The difference is two fold. 1) Encryption is useful to society outside the need for killing people. That is why you really cannot compare encryption to guns. 2) Even When criminals do use encrpytion - its used to facilitate killing rather than a direct way to kill people. Someone cannot just throw a bunch of random paper filled with numbers and I will fall dead. There is a long chain of events between transmission of secret information to people being killed. If you give the world's top two criminals access to encryption but lock them away in a plastic room - they cannot even theoretical hurt anyone. TLDR : Guns are stupid and people who like guns are stupid
- bjt2n3904 11y ago
  That's not necessarily the aspect I was thinking of when I wrote my post. Surely, guns and encryption are different in their function... but who gets to use them is the more interesting point. Try this on for size. In a post talking about our inability to analyze the potential abuse of deadly force by police, we're talking about surrendering the use of deadly force... ...to the police.
Frondo 11y ago
Guns and encryption aren't fungible in that sentence. No one's ever been injured or killed by accidental application of encryption, but thousands of people are injured or killed by accidental gunfire every year.
- nickff 11y ago
  Swimming pools are much more dangerous (100 times more deadly) than guns when it comes to accidental deaths; should swimming pools not be banned before guns?[1] [1] http://freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-5/ http://freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/...
  - superuser2 11y ago
    >when it comes to accidental deaths Accidental gun deaths are not remotely interesting compared to murder and suicide.
    - nickff 11y ago
      >Accidental gun deaths are not remotely interesting compared to murder and suicide. I was responding to a comment regarding accidental deaths and injuries, not suicide or murder. If this is insufficiently interesting to you, I suggest you read another comment.
debacle 11y ago
I have never heard that analogy but it is a very strong and succinct argument. Thanks.

bdhe 11y ago

> Have you ever tried your argument with s/guns/encryption/? This substitution is nonsensical. Fundamentally, encryption is a defensive tool. Where proponents of gun control (and I mean moderate folk, not just the let's ban the 2nd amendment folk) disagree with others is that guns aren't just a defensive tool. Given a sufficiently large population with poor safety nets and discrimination, adding encryption in everyone's hands will not change my day-to-day life significantly. Throw in guns and things change drastically. Now I have to be worried about a dark alley mugging at night at gunpoint.

nickff 11y ago
Tight regulation of legal gun ownership and possession does not appear to lead to reduced gun-related deaths, (based on a comparison between state Brady Campaign score and gun deaths,) except perhaps suicide, though this is debated .[1] What you worry about is of little import to anyone but yourself (,for example, I am scared of getting hit in the head by coconuts, which are 10 times more deadly than sharks!), if you have a fact-based concern, we may be able to address it. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- bdhe 11y ago
  > if you have a fact-based concern, we may be able to address it. I didn't quite enjoy this dismissive tone, so I'll be more pedantic than usual. The study you cited is interesting but it's not the end all of gun control discussion. It's barely even the beginning. First, it considers Brady scores at a state level to try to find correlation. Gun control legislation might be at a state-level but that's a nonsensical level of granularity. My concerns are about my neighborhoods, poverty, and guns. Not the state of California as a whole with over 35 million people. Second, from the article you cited: > Perhaps even controlling for those factors, there will be other missing factors that are hard to control for — for instance, maybe as the crime rate increases, calls for gun controls increase, so high crime causes more gun restrictions, or maybe calls for more freedom to defend oneself increase, so high crime causes fewer gun restrictions (e.g., liberalized concealed-carry licensing rules). And of course when small changes in the model yield substantial changes in results (e.g., if you calculate the state gun scores differently, the results will likely be different), you know how little you should credit the output. Figuring out the actual effect of government actions, whether gun laws, changed policing rules, drug laws, or anything else, is devilishly difficult. is a succinct summary of why this comparison study is meaningless. It's a good retort to someone who says that gun control leads to fewer deaths but it has so many caveats and such imprecise applicability that the only useful take away point is that at a state-level with some gun-control scoring pattern (viz. the Brady Campaign scores) discounting ALL other factors, gun-related deaths are not correlated to gun control.

1971genocide 11y ago

Lets continue your hyperbolic argument. Should we give every individual easy access to ICMBs, Tanks and Nuclear Weapon ? The difference is two fold. 1) Encryption is useful to society outside the need for killing people. That is why you really cannot compare encryption to guns. 2) Even When criminals do use encrpytion - its used to facilitate killing rather than a direct way to kill people. Someone cannot just throw a bunch of random paper filled with numbers and I will fall dead. There is a long chain of events between transmission of secret information to people being killed. If you give the world's top two criminals access to encryption but lock them away in a plastic room - they cannot even theoretical hurt anyone. TLDR : Guns are stupid and people who like guns are stupid

bjt2n3904 11y ago
That's not necessarily the aspect I was thinking of when I wrote my post. Surely, guns and encryption are different in their function... but who gets to use them is the more interesting point. Try this on for size. In a post talking about our inability to analyze the potential abuse of deadly force by police, we're talking about surrendering the use of deadly force... ...to the police.

Frondo 11y ago

Guns and encryption aren't fungible in that sentence. No one's ever been injured or killed by accidental application of encryption, but thousands of people are injured or killed by accidental gunfire every year.

nickff 11y ago
Swimming pools are much more dangerous (100 times more deadly) than guns when it comes to accidental deaths; should swimming pools not be banned before guns?[1] [1] http://freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-5/ http://freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/...
- superuser2 11y ago
  >when it comes to accidental deaths Accidental gun deaths are not remotely interesting compared to murder and suicide.
  - nickff 11y ago
    >Accidental gun deaths are not remotely interesting compared to murder and suicide. I was responding to a comment regarding accidental deaths and injuries, not suicide or murder. If this is insufficiently interesting to you, I suggest you read another comment.

debacle 11y ago

I have never heard that analogy but it is a very strong and succinct argument. Thanks.