(again, only playing devil's advocate :-) ) > For the comparison to be apt, firearms should play the same role in war that the internet (or lack of it) plays i

(again, only playing devil's advocate :-) ) > For the comparison to be apt, firearms should play the same role in war that the internet (or lack of it) plays in terrorism. I used the example of firearms as it's a force multiplier (and yeah, it's not a great analogy I admit). This allows a single person to have a potentially much larger impact by reaching more people, some of which may be susceptible to the message. The internet allows lots of people with similar opinions/interests to communicate (and find each other) which either would not have not been possible in the past, or very difficult. You see this played out in all sorts of places where there are communities built up online that wouldn't have been possible before, in all sorts of niche interests. > Well, it has worked wonders for alcohol (the prohibition), drugs, pornography, and everywhere else this concept has been tried. Did less (in number) people drink during prohibition than before/after? Would less people do drugs if they were legalised? Any reasonable argument would suggest that you obviously can't prevent all 'bad' communication, but you want to try and reduce the ease of availability of propaganda. Although I admit there is an obvious parallel with the 'gateway drugs' argument that's frequently made :-) > Which doesn't matter much, since you still need lots of in person checking out the person, plus meetings give them physical equipment they'll need (guns or whatever). Unless they fed-ex those... For a good number of recent attacks, this isn't necessarily true. Attackers use everyday items (vehicles, knifes etc.) and you don't need to 'check anyone out' because it's not a conversation, it's just a 'go out and kill people' message.