5 ms·

You cannot murder anyone with just a message. If you want less murders, maybe it makes sense to stricten regulation on firearms?

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
>If you want less murders, maybe it makes sense to stricten regulation on firearms? Why haven't they thought of that in Chicago, Stockton, Newark, Detroit, Memphis, Baltimore!? Oh wait, no. Stolen guns that actually make up the majority of crimes committed with, and straw purchases that "your plan" doesn't address. You know, reality of the situation, not what you heard on the news. I suppose there is also the fact it doesn't address that the murder rate in London is the same as NYC, despite an extreme lack of availability of guns surrounding London. Which strongly implies that guns aren't the only way murders are committed. I was ready to agree with you the problem was just "regulations" but then I thought about it.
- codedokode 7y ago
  Does not New York have additional restrictions on carrying or buying weapon?
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    Yes. New York does have additional restrictions on carrying. A case is going to the Supreme Court right now, and is expected to find those unconstitutional, so much so that the state of NY recently tried desperately and failed to not let that happen by voluntarily changing their law to get ahead of a ruling. [0] [0] http://archive.is/2zMZF http://archive.is/2zMZF If you are arguing that NY and London shouldn’t have the same murder rate, well, I don’t see how that plays for three reasons. 1. Despite the laws, criminals break them. Guns aren’t allowed to be carried in NY, but people do it anyhow. Just as heroin and coke aren’t legal ANYWHERE but we have lots of crime with them. 2. The murders in London are mostly knife as the weapon. New York has knife laws too, but not as strong as London iirc. I know my everyday carry knives are all illegal in both places. 3. Very much on topic, Illinois, Delaware, New Jersey, and etc have some of the strongest antigun laws in the country and cities with highest crime and guns as murder weapons. Here is the thing... we know EXACTLY, down to the neighborhoods where our crime is, and our rural areas with all the guns are on-par with rural Europe murder rates 2-4 per 100,000.
umvi 7y ago
Not just murder but child porn, human trafficking, terrorism, etc. My muslim coworker was recently arrested by the FBI for trying to carry out a truck attack (apparently he was radicalized by online ISIS videos) - it might be nice to get a warrant for his phone and see who else he was talking to or conspiring with. Or for the sake of privacy we could just not have any of that information which is what you are suggesting?
- sokoloff 7y ago
  I'm sure they'll get a warrant for his phone and have a look. The problem is that we have already extant and widely circulated encryption algorithms that (we believe) are secure against decryption. It's math. You can't "uninvent and destroy" all the math and preclude its use by adversaries determined to use it.
  - umvi 7y ago
    True, but you can make it more difficult for normal people to use. You can't uninvent fully automatic firearms, but you can make them difficult for normal people to obtain such that they are effectively never used (even by determined terrorists plotting mass shootings)
    - codedokode 7y ago
      You are comparing harmless messages to dangerous weapon. It would be ridiculous if one could buy a rifle with a range of hundreds of meters but couldn't use an algorithm to encrypt a message.
      - umvi 7y ago
        Who says messages are harmless? I disagree vehemently and contend that information can be indeed more harmful than firearms in the hands of the right people. A single message can mobilize millions of people to take to the streets and riot. A single firearm can't do that.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago

>If you want less murders, maybe it makes sense to stricten regulation on firearms? Why haven't they thought of that in Chicago, Stockton, Newark, Detroit, Memphis, Baltimore!? Oh wait, no. Stolen guns that actually make up the majority of crimes committed with, and straw purchases that "your plan" doesn't address. You know, reality of the situation, not what you heard on the news. I suppose there is also the fact it doesn't address that the murder rate in London is the same as NYC, despite an extreme lack of availability of guns surrounding London. Which strongly implies that guns aren't the only way murders are committed. I was ready to agree with you the problem was just "regulations" but then I thought about it.

codedokode 7y ago
Does not New York have additional restrictions on carrying or buying weapon?
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  Yes. New York does have additional restrictions on carrying. A case is going to the Supreme Court right now, and is expected to find those unconstitutional, so much so that the state of NY recently tried desperately and failed to not let that happen by voluntarily changing their law to get ahead of a ruling. [0] [0] http://archive.is/2zMZF http://archive.is/2zMZF If you are arguing that NY and London shouldn’t have the same murder rate, well, I don’t see how that plays for three reasons. 1. Despite the laws, criminals break them. Guns aren’t allowed to be carried in NY, but people do it anyhow. Just as heroin and coke aren’t legal ANYWHERE but we have lots of crime with them. 2. The murders in London are mostly knife as the weapon. New York has knife laws too, but not as strong as London iirc. I know my everyday carry knives are all illegal in both places. 3. Very much on topic, Illinois, Delaware, New Jersey, and etc have some of the strongest antigun laws in the country and cities with highest crime and guns as murder weapons. Here is the thing... we know EXACTLY, down to the neighborhoods where our crime is, and our rural areas with all the guns are on-par with rural Europe murder rates 2-4 per 100,000.

umvi 7y ago

Not just murder but child porn, human trafficking, terrorism, etc. My muslim coworker was recently arrested by the FBI for trying to carry out a truck attack (apparently he was radicalized by online ISIS videos) - it might be nice to get a warrant for his phone and see who else he was talking to or conspiring with. Or for the sake of privacy we could just not have any of that information which is what you are suggesting?

sokoloff 7y ago
I'm sure they'll get a warrant for his phone and have a look. The problem is that we have already extant and widely circulated encryption algorithms that (we believe) are secure against decryption. It's math. You can't "uninvent and destroy" all the math and preclude its use by adversaries determined to use it.
- umvi 7y ago
  True, but you can make it more difficult for normal people to use. You can't uninvent fully automatic firearms, but you can make them difficult for normal people to obtain such that they are effectively never used (even by determined terrorists plotting mass shootings)
  - codedokode 7y ago
    You are comparing harmless messages to dangerous weapon. It would be ridiculous if one could buy a rifle with a range of hundreds of meters but couldn't use an algorithm to encrypt a message.
    - umvi 7y ago
      Who says messages are harmless? I disagree vehemently and contend that information can be indeed more harmful than firearms in the hands of the right people. A single message can mobilize millions of people to take to the streets and riot. A single firearm can't do that.