10 ms·

> And yet they're drawn to the position because of the emotional overtones that are ubiquitous in coverage of the subject. or because they are tools made to ki

> And yet they're drawn to the position because of the emotional overtones that are ubiquitous in coverage of the subject. or because they are tools made to kill? Let's be honest this is not a good comparison (to stay polite). Not having guns at worst would force a group of people to find a new and less dangerous hobby, while not having encryption pretty much puts people's lives at risk in many countries and make having a democracy much more difficult.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
Surely you see that this is the same kind of emotional appeal the original commenter is decrying. "Tools made to kill" and "less dangerous hobby" aren't dispassionate statements of fact.
- post_below 7y ago
  Both of those statements are factually correct.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    "Black people are more likely to score lower on IQ tests" and "illegal immigrants are more likely to be involved in drug trafficking" are also factually correct. It is possible for a statement to be factually correct and politically inflammatory at the same time.
    - ethbro 7y ago
      For purposes of this thread, "emotionally inflammatory."
    - komali2 7y ago
      The rub is in definition, though. You've assumed far too much with your "factual statements," specifically on what does "black people" mean, what even is an "iq test," or what an "illegal immigrant" or "drug trafficking" is. That's why those are not really even factual statements but are quite politically inflammatory. The people who feel they're wrong may think they're facts but can't figure out why they aren't, not realizing that they aren't actually facts at all.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        The statements are true under common and reasonable definitions of those terms. And you can do the same thing for anything. I could easily contend that "less dangerous hobby" is factually incorrect because there are plenty of more dangerous hobbies not being prohibited, like drag racing or skydiving. And we had the whole discussion in the other thread about "tools made to kill."
  - Thriptic 7y ago
    I don't think they are really. Guns are tools made to inflict kinetic damage. They can inflict damage on humans, damage on animals, or damage on targets. That may seem like pedantry, but a huge number of guns aren't design to be used in anger, fired at a living thing, or will ever be purchased for the intent of firing at a living thing. I own a shotgun exclusively for shooting at clay targets for example, and I have no intention of ever pointing it at a living thing. Firearms used for sport are frequently explicitly designed for use in sport rather than being designed for combat, self defense, or hunting.
    - micmil 7y ago
      And yet the shotgun is so effective at murder even the mustard gassing asshole Germans balked at their use.
    - girvo 7y ago
      Genuine question: what’s the difference between a gun made for shooting clay targets and one that can kill someone?
      - nybble41 7y ago
        What's the difference between a kitchen knife and one that can be used to kill someone? Nothing, you can kill someone with a kitchen knife—but that isn't what it was designed for. There are guns designed to kill unsuspecting people at a distance (sniper rifles), there are guns designed to be carried for self-defense, and there are guns designed for hunting or target sports. Any of them could be used to commit a murder, but that doesn't mean they are all equally suited for it. In the end a gun is just a tool. It's the intent of the person using the tool that counts.
        K0SM0S 7y ago
        I think you pretty much nailed the bottom of that argument. I'd like to point out one thing: from a country¹ in which firearms are heavily restricted (non-law enforcers can't carry), there is little stigma if any on recreational shooting², and it's certainly a right to own such firearms at home. You just can't take them to work or to do shopping, only at the shooting range or equivalent, with precautions like partial disassembly, unloaded, in a bag... Normal practice. So it's really not about weapons in and of themselves that the rest of the world is puzzled about this American debate, not about the supposed cruelty of everyday people (nobody believes that). It's really about the fact that carrying a gun to work is a very slippery slope, even if the gun is in the car. Same idea with not carrying dangerous explosives if you can help it, the risk is too high compared to most perceived benefits. I think the self defense argument is very much biased by the fact that once others have guns, you may feel threatened not carrying yourself; conversely if no one carries you'd rather it stayed that way... It's a snake eating its own tail from both sides. The truth is, it's actually not normal people carrying that kills a lot in the US (although child accidents are statistically too high compared to eg Europe or Asia iirc). It's really the problem of gangs etc. Most lethal shootings are statistically related to someone's lifelong "job", not everyday honest people. But removing guns from wide circulation means we don't have e.g. teens shooting others anywhere else in the world, nowhere near the same magnitude, which is a troubling fact. Indeed, it's the person that holds the gun that counts, and young minds shouldn't have access to guns in that regard. Not enough control yet, it's a biological fact. [1]: France, but it's the same culture in most western EU countries afaik. Not sure about those closest to the Russian federation but I'm inclined to think they generally agree with us on the matter. [2]: Hunting is certainly midly popular here in rural areas, and those who voice criticism are 99% about the animal cruelty angle, they couldn't care less if the killing was done with knifes or arrows instead. The gun angle is just not a thing in most countries where guns are effectively banned from regular society but obviously totally accessible for sports: it's OK, really.
- garmaine 7y ago
  Guns are tools made to kill though. That's literally what they are: killing tools. Do they have any other purpose?
  - tonyztan 7y ago
    Killing in self-defense is justifiable. Encryption is designed to hide information. Hiding information for privacy is also justifiable.
    - zeofig 7y ago
      Guns aren't "killing for self defense". They're killing machines which lie around for a long time, and may have many effects one of which is self defense.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    Sport (marksmanship), crime deterrent (possible without actual violent use), a store of value (physically small high-value durable good with generally stable value over time), craftsmanship (manufacturing), collecting, psychological security blanket for vulnerable individuals, etc.
    - rytill 7y ago
      Those are just results of its purpose and of human nature. It’s not a very compelling list. People assault for sport too. And people would make all kinds of illegal things for craftsmanship if they could. Store of value seems particularly like a stretch. They are tools for killing. To what extent is it correct to regulate them is the question.
      - lukifer 7y ago
        It was a light-bulb moment when I learned that in medieval warfare, battles were relatively rare, and the primary mechanism of military force was the siege: camp outside and block trade/supplies, until the enemy runs out of food and gives up. Even if one has overwhelming force, fighting is expensive and risky, whether for an army or an individual [0]. This pattern replicates throughout nature: many animals develop signals to proxy their fighting strength without having to fight, due to the risk it would incur (such as growling as a signal of chest cavity size). It's perfectly cogent to own a gun, not with any intent to kill, but to establish a power dynamic, such that one could respond with deadly force if necessary [1]. This is how America projects its military power across the world, through 400+ bases and several aircraft super-carriers, with the majority of that force going unused. It's still a projection of power, and still subject to moral scrutiny; but having a military base parked outside Qatar, just in case, is not the same thing as "that military base is a tool for invading Qatar". I get your core point; weapons being deadly is the whole point, and even weapons acquired purely for deterrence can lead to a positive feedback loop of escalation, resulting in violence that would not have occurred otherwise. And humans are not purely rational actors; there's a simple numbers game, where the more guns are in a populace, the deadlier a small number of maniacs or extremists are going to be. It's not a problem we should ignore, and it's frustrating that NRA hardliners seem to be fine with doing so. I don't own a gun, and I'm in favor of something resembling "common sense gun control", as well as other harm reduction interventions (particularly universal mental health care); at the same time, I consider effective self-defense to be an inalienable human right (I don't declaw cats, either). But to say that guns exist only to kill is a little overly simplistic: to take another example, North Korea acquired nukes not to use them, but to dissuade the U.S. but ever thinking about instigating regime change. They know using them can only result in their immediate obliteration; yet owning them tilts the game-theoretic dynamic in their favor. [0] Aircraft and drones somewhat change the dynamic on this, but we can consider those out of scope in a 2A debate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_minimum_deterrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_minimum_deterrence
Igelau 7y ago
> puts people's lives at risk in many countries and make having a democracy much more difficult. Funny you should word it that way, because the Founders had a similar attitude about firearms: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
- fiblye 7y ago
  I think most people agree that a country needs a well regulated, armed militia to protect itself from nasty invading forces. But arming amateurs and everybody around is about as safe as everybody rolling out their own encryption algorithm.
  - Igelau 7y ago
    The parallelism of the language was notable. You and I do not disagree.
eyegor 7y ago
I don't disagree, but the irony is palpable. > this is not a good comparison > tools made to kill > pretty much puts people's lives at risk
tal8d 7y ago
> ... and make having a democracy much more difficult. Are you unaware of the fact that this is exact argument made by those who argue for the 2nd amendment? While you could argue that they are fear-mongers, with the tree of liberty talk, you can't then go on to talk about a threat to democracy by way of the government's constant violation of citizen's other rights (the 4th in this case). Emotional appeals are much easier for the confiscation proponents, because nobody expects internal consistency from someone waving a bloody shirt.
- belorn 7y ago
  Just because two people use the same argument does not mean they have both the same validity. Almost all democracies gives the government an exclusive right to violence. The government can order the army and police to shot people, while every citizen are forbidden to make a similar decision. The exception that exist are narrow defined and up to the legal system to decide per case if a decision to kill by a citizen can be forgiven based on circumstances. Almost no democracies gives the government an exclusive right to private communication and private secrets. Countries which governments does claim an exclusivity in this area are called totalitarian and is seen by many as the contradicting in terms to the definition of democracy.
  - tal8d 7y ago
    Yes, I understand that logical correctness is different from universal truth. But using the exact same formula to argue two mutually exclusive points in the same breath is a very good way of demonstrating why emotionally driven arguments yield poor results. > ...exclusive right to violence. I know that duty to retreat is much more common outside of the US, but I don't think any democracy demands that you just die in the face of a determined attacker - which would be required in your "exclusive right" characterization. While the classic way of describing it is a "monopoly on violence", the scenario you describe would be better characterized as an exclusive right to classify murder and manslaughter. > ...exclusive right to private communication and private secrets. Because that would be impossible, as they can't exclusively have a right to information that you generated - at worst it would be a shared right. The US does claim shared rights to everything that is possible though: the moment you share that information with anyone they claim that right - 3rd party doctrine. Your two points would have better symmetry if you added that bit about the definition of democracy onto the end of both. That would make it easier to spot the fact that you've just made the exact same "threat to democracy" argument I just replied to.
tonyztan 7y ago
> "Not having guns at worst would force a group of people to find a new and less dangerous hobby" No, not having guns at worst would deprive minorities of the ability to protect themselves. It is not only a hobby; it is also an effective means of self-defense.
- nemothekid 7y ago
  >No, not having guns at worst would deprive minorities of the ability to protect themselves. Are we talking about America? Where those same minorities are shot for holding toy guns?
  - tonyztan 7y ago
    Well, I know many minorities who carry guns to protect themselves. Both racial minorities and sexual minorities (LGBT+). Racism and police violence are real problems that need to be addressed, but taking away guns is not the solution.
L-four 7y ago
Encryption was literally invented to communicate and plan killing people.
- m463 7y ago
  The earliest known use of cryptography is found in non-standard hieroglyphs carved into the wall of a tomb from the Old Kingdom of Egypt circa 1900 BC. These are not thought to be serious attempts at secret communications, however, but rather to have been attempts at mystery, intrigue, or even amusement for literate onlookers. Some clay tablets from Mesopotamia somewhat later are clearly meant to protect information—one dated near 1500 BC was found to encrypt a craftsman's recipe for pottery glaze, presumably commercially valuable.
  - wl 7y ago
    I don't trust your source. 1900 BCE is Middle Kingdom, not Old Kingdom. Also, a lot of those older cryptic hieroglyphs turned out to be in an early Northwestern Semitic language. The idea was apparently that you're going to have spells effective against snakes coming in on ships from Byblos, the spells should invoke the deities they know in the language they know. https://semiticmuseum.fas.harvard.edu/publications/early-northwest-semitic-serpent-spells-pyramid-texts https://semiticmuseum.fas.harvard.edu/publications/early-nor...
- humbleMouse 7y ago
  I suppose you could say the same thing about the internet, and a number of other widely used technologies to come out of ww2 era.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- komali2 7y ago
  Encryption can be used for a lot of things. Guns can be used either to kill things, or to practice at getting better at killing things.
wyager 7y ago
Are you willing to take a bet on what fraction of guns sold to civilians have been used in a homicide? If you’re going to insist on a teleological argument, you might as well use the same standard we use for other tools: how people actually end up using them. No rational person describes knives as “tools to stab people” even though this is part of the historical basis for their development. Instead, the vast majority of knives are used to cut food or spread butter or open boxes. Indeed, these are all more plausible descriptions of what a knife is “for”, just like target shooting or hunting food is a much more plausible description of what guns are for.
- throwaway17_17 7y ago
  Just to put some rough numbers on it: - 393,000,000 firearms owned by US citizens - 39,773 firearm related deaths (including suicide) as a decent base yearly rate [this is the actual 2017 number] 14,542 firearm homicides as a decent base yearly rate [again, actual 2017 number]
gonational 7y ago
Not having a gun puts your life at risk, if you encounter a deadly threat beyond your ability to defend against. For 110 pound woman this might be a large man who wants to rape her, or for a 200 pound man capable of reasonable self-defense this might mean somebody attempting to rob him at knife point.
- girvo 7y ago
  And yet so many other developed countries are significantly less violent than the US, despite having far fewer guns in the hands of civilians
  - gonational 7y ago
    I wonder what things they have in common, if guns don’t seem to be a factor. Maybe we could figure out whatever that is and work on that, instead of focusing on gun ownership, which demonstrably does not lead to more violence, and in most cases, leads to less violence.
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    Those countries tend to already have better economic safety nets / welfare systems and mental health systems, thus mitigating the reasons why someone might be driven to engage in violent crime (let alone use a gun in said engagement) in the first place. That is: you're arguing that wet streets cause rain.
shard972 7y ago
> or because they are tools made to kill? Which makes it more important if anything. If its important not to give the government a foothold into knowing all information then how is it irrelevant to then give the government all power of force? Seems like the power to kill is the ultimate power in any society whether we like it or not.
throwaway17_17 7y ago
The number of injuries per year due to firearms (including homicides and suicides) in America is 106,000 approx. The percentage of firearm deaths including suicides is slightly less than 2% of total deaths. Those are barely significant figures. Less than .03% of Americans are effected by those 106,000 firearm incidents. There were 39,773 firearm deaths total in 2017 while there were 47,600 opioid causes deaths in the same year. And that is with an estimated 393 million small arms in the country. I’m not claiming that these deaths do not matter, I’m just saying that the impact of firearms is much more prominently discussed than other causes of death. I find it very much in line with the emotional pleas against encryption.
pyuser583 7y ago
If end to end encryption became the norm, people would die as a result. Children would be raped, radical groups would spread, etc. It’s still a good thing. But let’s not pretend there’s no cost. Freedoms have a price, and that price is often the inability of the state to protect us from malevolent members of society. That true for guns, and it’s true for encryption. There’s shared ground between the NRA and EFF. I just wish more conservative, law-and-order types would realize that.
mrmonkeyman 7y ago
Owning guns means not giving the gov 100% monopoly on violence. There is a fundamental right somewhere in there and you are glossing over it like it's an afterthought. That's what the poster meant.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

Surely you see that this is the same kind of emotional appeal the original commenter is decrying. "Tools made to kill" and "less dangerous hobby" aren't dispassionate statements of fact.

post_below 7y ago
Both of those statements are factually correct.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  "Black people are more likely to score lower on IQ tests" and "illegal immigrants are more likely to be involved in drug trafficking" are also factually correct. It is possible for a statement to be factually correct and politically inflammatory at the same time.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    For purposes of this thread, "emotionally inflammatory."
  - komali2 7y ago
    The rub is in definition, though. You've assumed far too much with your "factual statements," specifically on what does "black people" mean, what even is an "iq test," or what an "illegal immigrant" or "drug trafficking" is. That's why those are not really even factual statements but are quite politically inflammatory. The people who feel they're wrong may think they're facts but can't figure out why they aren't, not realizing that they aren't actually facts at all.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      The statements are true under common and reasonable definitions of those terms. And you can do the same thing for anything. I could easily contend that "less dangerous hobby" is factually incorrect because there are plenty of more dangerous hobbies not being prohibited, like drag racing or skydiving. And we had the whole discussion in the other thread about "tools made to kill."
- Thriptic 7y ago
  I don't think they are really. Guns are tools made to inflict kinetic damage. They can inflict damage on humans, damage on animals, or damage on targets. That may seem like pedantry, but a huge number of guns aren't design to be used in anger, fired at a living thing, or will ever be purchased for the intent of firing at a living thing. I own a shotgun exclusively for shooting at clay targets for example, and I have no intention of ever pointing it at a living thing. Firearms used for sport are frequently explicitly designed for use in sport rather than being designed for combat, self defense, or hunting.
  - micmil 7y ago
    And yet the shotgun is so effective at murder even the mustard gassing asshole Germans balked at their use.
  - girvo 7y ago
    Genuine question: what’s the difference between a gun made for shooting clay targets and one that can kill someone?
    - nybble41 7y ago
      What's the difference between a kitchen knife and one that can be used to kill someone? Nothing, you can kill someone with a kitchen knife—but that isn't what it was designed for. There are guns designed to kill unsuspecting people at a distance (sniper rifles), there are guns designed to be carried for self-defense, and there are guns designed for hunting or target sports. Any of them could be used to commit a murder, but that doesn't mean they are all equally suited for it. In the end a gun is just a tool. It's the intent of the person using the tool that counts.
      - K0SM0S 7y ago
        I think you pretty much nailed the bottom of that argument. I'd like to point out one thing: from a country¹ in which firearms are heavily restricted (non-law enforcers can't carry), there is little stigma if any on recreational shooting², and it's certainly a right to own such firearms at home. You just can't take them to work or to do shopping, only at the shooting range or equivalent, with precautions like partial disassembly, unloaded, in a bag... Normal practice. So it's really not about weapons in and of themselves that the rest of the world is puzzled about this American debate, not about the supposed cruelty of everyday people (nobody believes that). It's really about the fact that carrying a gun to work is a very slippery slope, even if the gun is in the car. Same idea with not carrying dangerous explosives if you can help it, the risk is too high compared to most perceived benefits. I think the self defense argument is very much biased by the fact that once others have guns, you may feel threatened not carrying yourself; conversely if no one carries you'd rather it stayed that way... It's a snake eating its own tail from both sides. The truth is, it's actually not normal people carrying that kills a lot in the US (although child accidents are statistically too high compared to eg Europe or Asia iirc). It's really the problem of gangs etc. Most lethal shootings are statistically related to someone's lifelong "job", not everyday honest people. But removing guns from wide circulation means we don't have e.g. teens shooting others anywhere else in the world, nowhere near the same magnitude, which is a troubling fact. Indeed, it's the person that holds the gun that counts, and young minds shouldn't have access to guns in that regard. Not enough control yet, it's a biological fact. [1]: France, but it's the same culture in most western EU countries afaik. Not sure about those closest to the Russian federation but I'm inclined to think they generally agree with us on the matter. [2]: Hunting is certainly midly popular here in rural areas, and those who voice criticism are 99% about the animal cruelty angle, they couldn't care less if the killing was done with knifes or arrows instead. The gun angle is just not a thing in most countries where guns are effectively banned from regular society but obviously totally accessible for sports: it's OK, really.
garmaine 7y ago
Guns are tools made to kill though. That's literally what they are: killing tools. Do they have any other purpose?
- tonyztan 7y ago
  Killing in self-defense is justifiable. Encryption is designed to hide information. Hiding information for privacy is also justifiable.
  - zeofig 7y ago
    Guns aren't "killing for self defense". They're killing machines which lie around for a long time, and may have many effects one of which is self defense.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  Sport (marksmanship), crime deterrent (possible without actual violent use), a store of value (physically small high-value durable good with generally stable value over time), craftsmanship (manufacturing), collecting, psychological security blanket for vulnerable individuals, etc.
  - rytill 7y ago
    Those are just results of its purpose and of human nature. It’s not a very compelling list. People assault for sport too. And people would make all kinds of illegal things for craftsmanship if they could. Store of value seems particularly like a stretch. They are tools for killing. To what extent is it correct to regulate them is the question.
    - lukifer 7y ago
      It was a light-bulb moment when I learned that in medieval warfare, battles were relatively rare, and the primary mechanism of military force was the siege: camp outside and block trade/supplies, until the enemy runs out of food and gives up. Even if one has overwhelming force, fighting is expensive and risky, whether for an army or an individual [0]. This pattern replicates throughout nature: many animals develop signals to proxy their fighting strength without having to fight, due to the risk it would incur (such as growling as a signal of chest cavity size). It's perfectly cogent to own a gun, not with any intent to kill, but to establish a power dynamic, such that one could respond with deadly force if necessary [1]. This is how America projects its military power across the world, through 400+ bases and several aircraft super-carriers, with the majority of that force going unused. It's still a projection of power, and still subject to moral scrutiny; but having a military base parked outside Qatar, just in case, is not the same thing as "that military base is a tool for invading Qatar". I get your core point; weapons being deadly is the whole point, and even weapons acquired purely for deterrence can lead to a positive feedback loop of escalation, resulting in violence that would not have occurred otherwise. And humans are not purely rational actors; there's a simple numbers game, where the more guns are in a populace, the deadlier a small number of maniacs or extremists are going to be. It's not a problem we should ignore, and it's frustrating that NRA hardliners seem to be fine with doing so. I don't own a gun, and I'm in favor of something resembling "common sense gun control", as well as other harm reduction interventions (particularly universal mental health care); at the same time, I consider effective self-defense to be an inalienable human right (I don't declaw cats, either). But to say that guns exist only to kill is a little overly simplistic: to take another example, North Korea acquired nukes not to use them, but to dissuade the U.S. but ever thinking about instigating regime change. They know using them can only result in their immediate obliteration; yet owning them tilts the game-theoretic dynamic in their favor. [0] Aircraft and drones somewhat change the dynamic on this, but we can consider those out of scope in a 2A debate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_minimum_deterrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_minimum_deterrence

Igelau 7y ago

> puts people's lives at risk in many countries and make having a democracy much more difficult. Funny you should word it that way, because the Founders had a similar attitude about firearms: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

fiblye 7y ago
I think most people agree that a country needs a well regulated, armed militia to protect itself from nasty invading forces. But arming amateurs and everybody around is about as safe as everybody rolling out their own encryption algorithm.
- Igelau 7y ago
  The parallelism of the language was notable. You and I do not disagree.

eyegor 7y ago

I don't disagree, but the irony is palpable. > this is not a good comparison > tools made to kill > pretty much puts people's lives at risk

tal8d 7y ago

> ... and make having a democracy much more difficult. Are you unaware of the fact that this is exact argument made by those who argue for the 2nd amendment? While you could argue that they are fear-mongers, with the tree of liberty talk, you can't then go on to talk about a threat to democracy by way of the government's constant violation of citizen's other rights (the 4th in this case). Emotional appeals are much easier for the confiscation proponents, because nobody expects internal consistency from someone waving a bloody shirt.

belorn 7y ago
Just because two people use the same argument does not mean they have both the same validity. Almost all democracies gives the government an exclusive right to violence. The government can order the army and police to shot people, while every citizen are forbidden to make a similar decision. The exception that exist are narrow defined and up to the legal system to decide per case if a decision to kill by a citizen can be forgiven based on circumstances. Almost no democracies gives the government an exclusive right to private communication and private secrets. Countries which governments does claim an exclusivity in this area are called totalitarian and is seen by many as the contradicting in terms to the definition of democracy.
- tal8d 7y ago
  Yes, I understand that logical correctness is different from universal truth. But using the exact same formula to argue two mutually exclusive points in the same breath is a very good way of demonstrating why emotionally driven arguments yield poor results. > ...exclusive right to violence. I know that duty to retreat is much more common outside of the US, but I don't think any democracy demands that you just die in the face of a determined attacker - which would be required in your "exclusive right" characterization. While the classic way of describing it is a "monopoly on violence", the scenario you describe would be better characterized as an exclusive right to classify murder and manslaughter. > ...exclusive right to private communication and private secrets. Because that would be impossible, as they can't exclusively have a right to information that you generated - at worst it would be a shared right. The US does claim shared rights to everything that is possible though: the moment you share that information with anyone they claim that right - 3rd party doctrine. Your two points would have better symmetry if you added that bit about the definition of democracy onto the end of both. That would make it easier to spot the fact that you've just made the exact same "threat to democracy" argument I just replied to.

tonyztan 7y ago

> "Not having guns at worst would force a group of people to find a new and less dangerous hobby" No, not having guns at worst would deprive minorities of the ability to protect themselves. It is not only a hobby; it is also an effective means of self-defense.

nemothekid 7y ago
>No, not having guns at worst would deprive minorities of the ability to protect themselves. Are we talking about America? Where those same minorities are shot for holding toy guns?
- tonyztan 7y ago
  Well, I know many minorities who carry guns to protect themselves. Both racial minorities and sexual minorities (LGBT+). Racism and police violence are real problems that need to be addressed, but taking away guns is not the solution.

L-four 7y ago

Encryption was literally invented to communicate and plan killing people.

m463 7y ago
The earliest known use of cryptography is found in non-standard hieroglyphs carved into the wall of a tomb from the Old Kingdom of Egypt circa 1900 BC. These are not thought to be serious attempts at secret communications, however, but rather to have been attempts at mystery, intrigue, or even amusement for literate onlookers. Some clay tablets from Mesopotamia somewhat later are clearly meant to protect information—one dated near 1500 BC was found to encrypt a craftsman's recipe for pottery glaze, presumably commercially valuable.
- wl 7y ago
  I don't trust your source. 1900 BCE is Middle Kingdom, not Old Kingdom. Also, a lot of those older cryptic hieroglyphs turned out to be in an early Northwestern Semitic language. The idea was apparently that you're going to have spells effective against snakes coming in on ships from Byblos, the spells should invoke the deities they know in the language they know. https://semiticmuseum.fas.harvard.edu/publications/early-northwest-semitic-serpent-spells-pyramid-texts https://semiticmuseum.fas.harvard.edu/publications/early-nor...
humbleMouse 7y ago
I suppose you could say the same thing about the internet, and a number of other widely used technologies to come out of ww2 era.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
komali2 7y ago
Encryption can be used for a lot of things. Guns can be used either to kill things, or to practice at getting better at killing things.

wyager 7y ago

Are you willing to take a bet on what fraction of guns sold to civilians have been used in a homicide? If you’re going to insist on a teleological argument, you might as well use the same standard we use for other tools: how people actually end up using them. No rational person describes knives as “tools to stab people” even though this is part of the historical basis for their development. Instead, the vast majority of knives are used to cut food or spread butter or open boxes. Indeed, these are all more plausible descriptions of what a knife is “for”, just like target shooting or hunting food is a much more plausible description of what guns are for.

throwaway17_17 7y ago
Just to put some rough numbers on it: - 393,000,000 firearms owned by US citizens - 39,773 firearm related deaths (including suicide) as a decent base yearly rate [this is the actual 2017 number] 14,542 firearm homicides as a decent base yearly rate [again, actual 2017 number]

gonational 7y ago

Not having a gun puts your life at risk, if you encounter a deadly threat beyond your ability to defend against. For 110 pound woman this might be a large man who wants to rape her, or for a 200 pound man capable of reasonable self-defense this might mean somebody attempting to rob him at knife point.

girvo 7y ago
And yet so many other developed countries are significantly less violent than the US, despite having far fewer guns in the hands of civilians
- gonational 7y ago
  I wonder what things they have in common, if guns don’t seem to be a factor. Maybe we could figure out whatever that is and work on that, instead of focusing on gun ownership, which demonstrably does not lead to more violence, and in most cases, leads to less violence.
- yellowapple 7y ago
  Those countries tend to already have better economic safety nets / welfare systems and mental health systems, thus mitigating the reasons why someone might be driven to engage in violent crime (let alone use a gun in said engagement) in the first place. That is: you're arguing that wet streets cause rain.

shard972 7y ago

> or because they are tools made to kill? Which makes it more important if anything. If its important not to give the government a foothold into knowing all information then how is it irrelevant to then give the government all power of force? Seems like the power to kill is the ultimate power in any society whether we like it or not.

throwaway17_17 7y ago

The number of injuries per year due to firearms (including homicides and suicides) in America is 106,000 approx. The percentage of firearm deaths including suicides is slightly less than 2% of total deaths. Those are barely significant figures. Less than .03% of Americans are effected by those 106,000 firearm incidents. There were 39,773 firearm deaths total in 2017 while there were 47,600 opioid causes deaths in the same year. And that is with an estimated 393 million small arms in the country. I’m not claiming that these deaths do not matter, I’m just saying that the impact of firearms is much more prominently discussed than other causes of death. I find it very much in line with the emotional pleas against encryption.

pyuser583 7y ago

If end to end encryption became the norm, people would die as a result. Children would be raped, radical groups would spread, etc. It’s still a good thing. But let’s not pretend there’s no cost. Freedoms have a price, and that price is often the inability of the state to protect us from malevolent members of society. That true for guns, and it’s true for encryption. There’s shared ground between the NRA and EFF. I just wish more conservative, law-and-order types would realize that.

mrmonkeyman 7y ago

Owning guns means not giving the gov 100% monopoly on violence. There is a fundamental right somewhere in there and you are glossing over it like it's an afterthought. That's what the poster meant.