3 ms·

The difference is that guns are inherently dangerous: their main purpose is to cause destruction and harm, while encryption is not inherently dangerous. One per

The difference is that guns are inherently dangerous: their main purpose is to cause destruction and harm, while encryption is not inherently dangerous. One person with access to a gun can head down to the mall or a school and wreak massive havok. Can you say the same about one person with an RSA-2048 algorithm? I don't think the comparison between guns and encryption is fair at all, if anything, encryption might be like the balaclava that the shooter uses to cover their identity.

Nadya 11y ago
>The difference is that guns are inherently dangerous: their main purpose is to cause destruction and harm The difference being how you framed that to begin with: Many people have and continue to use guns to provide food and protection. If we ban guns because a small group of people misuse them, I want: 1) Automobiles banned: http://www.amazon.com/Driven-Kill-Vehicles-as-Weapons/dp/0888644876 http://www.amazon.com/Driven-Kill-Vehicles-as-Weapons/dp/088... 2) Knives banned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre & http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attac... 2.1) Sharp objects in general banned: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breakingnews/offbeat/man-killed-cellmate-with-pencil-28641625.html http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breakingnews/offbeat/man-k... The argument is always "guns make it easier to kill others". This is almost always touted by people who've never shot a gun or have never aimed a gun. Worse, they target the wrong kind of guns [0]. Namely, rifles and shotguns and "scary looking guns" that are used less often than knives are used for murder. The only compelling argument one can make is that "given the choice between a blunt object, a knife, or a gun, most murderers pick guns". There is little to no evidence that removing guns removes murderers. The reasoning that they would simply pick a different weapon seems to be tossed aside and ignored. I don't and never will own a gun. Before anyone tries to justify my "owning a gun" as their argument for why I'm biased by supporting gun rights. [0] https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/...
hga 11y ago
I upvoted you, but I caveat that in the 10,000+ times I've shot a gun, far less than a thousand times have I even intended to "cause destruction and harm", i.e. kill an animal while hunting game or for pest control. Most of those rounds I've fired were on my school's JROTC rifle range.

Nadya 11y ago

>The difference is that guns are inherently dangerous: their main purpose is to cause destruction and harm The difference being how you framed that to begin with: Many people have and continue to use guns to provide food and protection. If we ban guns because a small group of people misuse them, I want: 1) Automobiles banned: http://www.amazon.com/Driven-Kill-Vehicles-as-Weapons/dp/0888644876 http://www.amazon.com/Driven-Kill-Vehicles-as-Weapons/dp/088... 2) Knives banned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre & http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attac... 2.1) Sharp objects in general banned: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breakingnews/offbeat/man-killed-cellmate-with-pencil-28641625.html http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breakingnews/offbeat/man-k... The argument is always "guns make it easier to kill others". This is almost always touted by people who've never shot a gun or have never aimed a gun. Worse, they target the wrong kind of guns [0]. Namely, rifles and shotguns and "scary looking guns" that are used less often than knives are used for murder. The only compelling argument one can make is that "given the choice between a blunt object, a knife, or a gun, most murderers pick guns". There is little to no evidence that removing guns removes murderers. The reasoning that they would simply pick a different weapon seems to be tossed aside and ignored. I don't and never will own a gun. Before anyone tries to justify my "owning a gun" as their argument for why I'm biased by supporting gun rights. [0] https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/...

hga 11y ago

I upvoted you, but I caveat that in the 10,000+ times I've shot a gun, far less than a thousand times have I even intended to "cause destruction and harm", i.e. kill an animal while hunting game or for pest control. Most of those rounds I've fired were on my school's JROTC rifle range.