7 ms·

As a Brit, I'd say not having guns freely available is one of the fights we won.

by spzb 4y ago

jojobas 4y ago
A lot of people will say the same when you lose right to encryption, and both will be wrong.
- amarant 4y ago
  Except you can't kill someone with encryption. Your freedoms end where my freedoms begin, and guns are just a tool to change that dynamic. They serve no other purpose, unless we're talking hunting, for which you can still get guns, after some education. I don't get how Americans seem to think it makes sense to require a license to drive a car but not to own a gun? Who is more dangerous, a guy driving a sedan or one holding an AR?
  - Dudeman112 4y ago
    To be fair with them, cars do kill a fair bit more than guns in the USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-da...
  - jojobas 4y ago
    A gun is self defence incarnate. The right to effective self defence is a natural right and requires no license. Americans use guns defensively hundreds of thousands times a year. Encryption can very much be used to facilitate murder. Your data is not as important as your life.
    - crtasm 4y ago
      > The right to effective self defence is a natural right I don't see how that's correct, defending oneself with something natural sounds OK though.
      - dark_glass 4y ago
        Does a big strong man have more of a right to self defense than a little woman? A gun makes for effective self defense.
      - wonderwonder 4y ago
        How can self defense not be a natural right? Someone comes into your home is beating your child and you're not home. Should your wife be forced to fight a man twice her size with her natural hands or is it ok for her to shoot the guy trying to kill her kids? Same situation. You are home. Should you be forced to engage the criminal with your bare hands knowing that if you lose the fight your kids will be murdered?
        crtasm 4y ago
        Please spare us the appeals to emotion. The context here is owning something to provide "effective self defense" - so where do we draw the line? Can I decide that only owning a gun is not enough against the other gun owners so I need something more effective? GP's claim is this right justifies owning a weapon that can easily kill. That's far beyond "effective" in my view.
        wonderwonder 4y ago
        Sorry, I think having to watch my family get killed by someone because I am unable to defend them would be pretty emotional. I think that's the definition of effective. Someone breaks into my home high on pcp, the most effective way to stop them hurting my family is killing them. Is that not a true statement? What is a more effective way to do it, knowing that failure potentially means the death of your kids? I'm not going to engage them with a tazer, there's the chance they will walk right through it, then what? Anthony Smith, the current #5 ranked light heavyweight in the UFC is 6'4 and probably walks around at 230lbs. A guy on drugs broke into his house and Smith fought him and could not put him down. This is a guy that could defeat 99% of people on earth in a fight. I'm a big strong guy, Smith would absolutely murder me. Why would a normal civilian choose to fight a home invader with their fists when a more effective option is available? What if 2 people break in? "Can I decide that only owning a gun is not enough against the other gun owners so I need something more effective?" I don't think firing a rocket launcher at someone in your house is going to be as effective as a firearm due to the potential for collateral damage. Also tanks play hell with my new wooden floors. Claymore mines are always a risk when stumbling around in the dark when the dog has to go outside. There is no other rational more effective choice than a firearm for someone defending their home provided they know how to use it. If you're real argument is that no one should be able to kill someone else even if they are a home invader here to murder your family then Im not sure what to say. I guess I would like to know what you would do in that situation knowing what losing means.
  - Bloating 4y ago
    Likewise, its not the gun that kills
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    Because one is protected from government in the Constitution. It literally says that the government cannot infringe on one's right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say the government allows you to have them. It says the government cannot disallow you from having them.* *Note: the government could disallow one from having them so long as that person goes through due process, at which point Constitutional restrictions placed upon the government are relaxed in specific areas.
  - wonderwonder 4y ago
    "Except you can't kill someone with encryption." You can damn sure wreck their lives without it though. Lets say a generally good guy is thinking about running for office. He has a encrypted chat with some old friends where they occasionally make off color jokes about whatever protected class happens to be in favor at the time, gay, trans, black, whatever. He runs for office and the people in power simply pull up his chat logs, accuse him of being a racist and thats it for him. This is just one obvious example but there are millions. He is in an open marriage, gay, a swinger, satanist, you name it, it will be used against him. Its a way for the government in power to stay in power.
    - caoilte 4y ago
      Hacking individuals in this way is already done via targeted 0-day exploits. The targets are more likely to be journalists and activists (for their sources) though. The noided assumption is that politicians and business leaders self-compromise in order to boost their chances of career success (and/or that they see getting compromised by Epstein et al as a career perk rather than a career mistake). It's the same principle as cops only being able to get promoted if they're known to be on the take. This sort of law enables dragnet surveillance. Domestic Intelligence are always looking for new ways to take temperature readings on agitation before it boils over into public protest and to identify previously unknown community leaders that should be placed under more direct surveillance.
- crote 4y ago
  How many children accidentally kill themselves by playing around with their dad's encryption?

As a Brit, I'd say not having guns freely available is one of the fights we won.

by spzb 4y ago

As a Brit, I'd say not having guns freely available is one of the fights we won.

jojobas 4y ago

A lot of people will say the same when you lose right to encryption, and both will be wrong.

amarant 4y ago
Except you can't kill someone with encryption. Your freedoms end where my freedoms begin, and guns are just a tool to change that dynamic. They serve no other purpose, unless we're talking hunting, for which you can still get guns, after some education. I don't get how Americans seem to think it makes sense to require a license to drive a car but not to own a gun? Who is more dangerous, a guy driving a sedan or one holding an AR?
- Dudeman112 4y ago
  To be fair with them, cars do kill a fair bit more than guns in the USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-da...
- jojobas 4y ago
  A gun is self defence incarnate. The right to effective self defence is a natural right and requires no license. Americans use guns defensively hundreds of thousands times a year. Encryption can very much be used to facilitate murder. Your data is not as important as your life.
  - crtasm 4y ago
    > The right to effective self defence is a natural right I don't see how that's correct, defending oneself with something natural sounds OK though.
    - dark_glass 4y ago
      Does a big strong man have more of a right to self defense than a little woman? A gun makes for effective self defense.
    - wonderwonder 4y ago
      How can self defense not be a natural right? Someone comes into your home is beating your child and you're not home. Should your wife be forced to fight a man twice her size with her natural hands or is it ok for her to shoot the guy trying to kill her kids? Same situation. You are home. Should you be forced to engage the criminal with your bare hands knowing that if you lose the fight your kids will be murdered?
      - crtasm 4y ago
        Please spare us the appeals to emotion. The context here is owning something to provide "effective self defense" - so where do we draw the line? Can I decide that only owning a gun is not enough against the other gun owners so I need something more effective? GP's claim is this right justifies owning a weapon that can easily kill. That's far beyond "effective" in my view.
        wonderwonder 4y ago
        Sorry, I think having to watch my family get killed by someone because I am unable to defend them would be pretty emotional. I think that's the definition of effective. Someone breaks into my home high on pcp, the most effective way to stop them hurting my family is killing them. Is that not a true statement? What is a more effective way to do it, knowing that failure potentially means the death of your kids? I'm not going to engage them with a tazer, there's the chance they will walk right through it, then what? Anthony Smith, the current #5 ranked light heavyweight in the UFC is 6'4 and probably walks around at 230lbs. A guy on drugs broke into his house and Smith fought him and could not put him down. This is a guy that could defeat 99% of people on earth in a fight. I'm a big strong guy, Smith would absolutely murder me. Why would a normal civilian choose to fight a home invader with their fists when a more effective option is available? What if 2 people break in? "Can I decide that only owning a gun is not enough against the other gun owners so I need something more effective?" I don't think firing a rocket launcher at someone in your house is going to be as effective as a firearm due to the potential for collateral damage. Also tanks play hell with my new wooden floors. Claymore mines are always a risk when stumbling around in the dark when the dog has to go outside. There is no other rational more effective choice than a firearm for someone defending their home provided they know how to use it. If you're real argument is that no one should be able to kill someone else even if they are a home invader here to murder your family then Im not sure what to say. I guess I would like to know what you would do in that situation knowing what losing means.
- Bloating 4y ago
  Likewise, its not the gun that kills
- hellojesus 4y ago
  Because one is protected from government in the Constitution. It literally says that the government cannot infringe on one's right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say the government allows you to have them. It says the government cannot disallow you from having them.* *Note: the government could disallow one from having them so long as that person goes through due process, at which point Constitutional restrictions placed upon the government are relaxed in specific areas.
- wonderwonder 4y ago
  "Except you can't kill someone with encryption." You can damn sure wreck their lives without it though. Lets say a generally good guy is thinking about running for office. He has a encrypted chat with some old friends where they occasionally make off color jokes about whatever protected class happens to be in favor at the time, gay, trans, black, whatever. He runs for office and the people in power simply pull up his chat logs, accuse him of being a racist and thats it for him. This is just one obvious example but there are millions. He is in an open marriage, gay, a swinger, satanist, you name it, it will be used against him. Its a way for the government in power to stay in power.
  - caoilte 4y ago
    Hacking individuals in this way is already done via targeted 0-day exploits. The targets are more likely to be journalists and activists (for their sources) though. The noided assumption is that politicians and business leaders self-compromise in order to boost their chances of career success (and/or that they see getting compromised by Epstein et al as a career perk rather than a career mistake). It's the same principle as cops only being able to get promoted if they're known to be on the take. This sort of law enables dragnet surveillance. Domestic Intelligence are always looking for new ways to take temperature readings on agitation before it boils over into public protest and to identify previously unknown community leaders that should be placed under more direct surveillance.
crote 4y ago
How many children accidentally kill themselves by playing around with their dad's encryption?