While the parent made a partially correct comparison, this whole thread is turning into a giant contest on highlighting where it doesn't work and then trying lo

While the parent made a partially correct comparison, this whole thread is turning into a giant contest on highlighting where it doesn't work and then trying logic fallacies of all sorts. What's wrong with you, people? Surely, not every argument. I don't think arguments like "legally owned guns are frequently stolen and used by criminals" works for strong cryptography. However, things like "more ____ control laws would reduce deaths", "high-____ should be banned because they too often ____", "____ are rarely used in self-defense" or "a majority of adults, including ____, support common sense ____ control" can be tried. I just took those from the first search result for "gun control", picking few that I was able to adapt without rephrasing too much. Heck, I can see even how "more ____ control leads to fewer suicides" can be pulled. In glorious Russia we already have this train of thought running at full-speed, just with "Internet censorship" instead of "strong cryptography". So while parent comment is obviously biased, it has some valid point. Not sure if its validity means anything useful, though. ____ Note, I explicitly don't evaluate any claims validity here, and must remind that even if "A does X" is true, and even though "A is similar to B in some respects", that doesn't mean that "B does X" is true. Edit: ouch, can't flag myself. :(