4 ms·

If you could be a little more specific regarding the problems you see with the argument/perspective we might be able to have a discussion. Heres my perspective

If you could be a little more specific regarding the problems you see with the argument/perspective we might be able to have a discussion. Heres my perspective on how the issues are related: I've never met a hacker who believes a particular line of code should be illegal. This is because code is just a tool which can be put to any number of uses. Even blatantly malicious and infectious code should be legal in and of itself because we can learn from it and put that knowledge to use. You know our adversaries are doing the same. Using that code in a way that causes harm is what should be illegal. Writing the virus or a proof of concept for an exploit is how we become more resilient. This same line of reasoning applies to firearms.

coldtea 12y ago
Unlike code, which is infinitely malleable, firearms have an inherent use. Pointing to people with them and/or shooting them. Whether it's for protection or attack, I don't particularly care. In both cases the acceptance of firearms raises the bar for tolerance of violence and makes both protection and attack more violent, ending up in a more violent society. When you make it OK to have firearms for "protection", you also make it OK, if not a necessity, for assaulters to carry firearms in their attacks too. Conversely, in places were private firearms are not tolerated, not even attackers (robbers etc) use firearms (with rare exceptions). Of course it's not that the first (firearms for protection) causes the second (firearms for attacks) -- it's the underlying distrurbance in how society sees violence that causes both.