3 ms·

Just look at gun control arguments to see why people think outlawing activity will stop criminals.

• studentrob 11y ago
  Guns are somewhat difficult to produce. This is more akin to knife control.
  • brbsix 11y ago
    No more difficult to produce than many illicit drugs. Potentially much easier even, with the right parts. Besides, there are plenty of other countries you can smuggle arms into the U.S. from given sufficient demand. Of course the knife analogy is still useful. We all know the futility of outlawing software.
  • natch 11y ago
    Any weapon analogy is bad for our side of the argument, because weapons sound to many people like things that bad people use to do bad things. Yes, I realize that knives are used in kitchens to cut vegetables, but with the way this discussion is rightly framed as a security thing, people are not thinking about kitchens. I would prefer to see lock analogies. Here's a half baked example: This is like a law requiring all builders of buildings to install locks that can be opened by any person who gets access to a copy of a law enforcement key.
    • finnn 11y ago
      You mean like a Knox Box[0]? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knox_Box https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knox_Box
    • lukeschlather 11y ago
      It's substantially worse than that. This law makes all unbreakable locks illegal.
    • coldpie 11y ago
      Any analogy is bad. The internet has no analogy in the physical world. Do not use analogies to discuss this issue.
    • blktiger 11y ago
      Personally I like that analogy because it was recently revealed that people can 3D print working keys from a photo of a key. So even the "physical" key is vulnerable to security attacks of a digital nature. All someone needs to do is get a photo of the global "key" and they can then get into anybody's safe.
• avar 11y ago
  > Just look at gun control arguments > to see why people think outlawing > activity will stop criminals. Ahem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#Research
  • Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    I read it. There seems to have been a bunch of studies that reached the consensus that the laws had little impact on a trend that existed before the laws and continued afterwords. >The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported >In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide. >In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[49] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had little to no effect on violence. One of the only 'wins' seems to be that people who committed suicide were less likely to use guns, but more likely to use other methods. >As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling. >Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.