Terrorist solution or Orwellian first step

If the Government wants to control encryption in order to stop terrorist actions, wouldn't it be a better idea to make firearms manufacturers stop making guns that the terrorists can use against innocent people? This wont happen but then again stopping guns wouldn't let the government spy on American citizens.
So what is more important to the government, taking weapons from the bad guys or having carte blanche to spy on their own citizens with impunity?

What do you people think?

I think that is the worst comparison ever made.

What needs to happen is better tracking. If instead of dropping bombs from our 3000000 USD Air Hogs planes we actually watched what was going where shit would be a hell of a lot easier to follow.

On top of that we need spies. We have to be willing to lose a few people to gain a shit ton more than we have right now which in case no one has noticed isn't a lot. That and with shit like the fbi trying to make encryption illegal, the NSA being a pain in the ass, the EU potentially dissolving, and greece only being useful for olives and debt, I think theres a shit ton more to pay attention to than racists in texas whining about brown people and shit blowing up because apple asked a smart question for once.

I think (personally, mind) that this is a strawman argument. Comparing guns to privacy is as valid as comparing speech & religion rights; i.e., it isn't. Still, I'm going to give you a little info dump here because I care (about human rights).

I have a right to carry a gun in any sane (number declining regularly, sadly) country on this planet because I have an inalienable human right to defend myself, and because technology cannot be made to go backward.

No matter how much the governments would like to take guns away from the terrorists, they can't. You stop the sales of guns or the gun manufacturers, the terrorist will go to the hardware store and buy steel pipe in 1 or 2 foot segments, and a hammer. You outlaw the sale or manufacture of ammunition, he'll buy a (then drastically inflated price, but he'll still do it) reloading bench. And that's not even addressing the used markets, OR black markets. Both have been proved to thrive no matter what steps you take against them.

If a man wants to kill someone he will do so with the best tools available to himself whether those tools are legal or not. The only way to protect the people is to allow them a reasonable right to carry. Examples of reasonable limits: door check & lockers for weapons at particularly sensitive places like hospitals, ownership limits on full-auto weapons, etc. Example of non-reasonable limits: mag size limits, conviction for non-violent crime barring ownership, etc.

Moving on to privacy, the governments don't want encryption to stop terrorists. Fact is, and the governments know this, that old-fashioned detective work is the best way to stop actual criminals. Look at the Silk Road case. Everything Ulbricht allegedly (and I think pretty strongly) did was encrypted, and he was on the tech side of things, protected in all sorts of ways. How was he caught? Detective work.

Encryption poses zero threat to governments from terrorists or other criminals. It may make a few cases somewhat harder. I doubt it will make any just case truly impossible. We're very good at training investigators, whether they're called Agents or Detectives.

On the other hand, well implemented encryption promises a lot. It means protection for activists, whether here in the US or in places like China. It means security for the common user, against for example hackers whose motivations cannot be ascertained until after the fact. It means that people who are part of subcommunities that are legal but looked down upon can interact and communicate without fear of harassment caused by a 'digital bystander' outing them.

Yes, very much so. But that data has to be looked at carefully.

The distinction between a terrorist, and a patriotic, law-abiding 'prepper', say? May be difficult to determine if all you're looking at is # of rounds bought.

In my option any Gun the army can get the citizen of that county should be able to by and get. Have you ever noticed all of the shooting have taken place in the gun free zones lets thing about this for a min. Why would someone break the law and bring a gun into a gun free zone maybe it is the shooter does not want anybody to shoot back while they are killing all the unarmed people in the building. 20 to 30 mins latter the police come. no my answer is simple arm everybody if some one starts shooting then you can defend yourself. The other reason to arm everybody remember what happen to Jews during WWII yes it did happen. This group of people where put to death because they have different religions beliefs. In a civilized world it is wrong to kill anybody but guess what people have been killing people since the begging of time and nothing is going to change human nature.

1 Like

Armed security guards. Hospitals should be gun-free. Most patients won't be able to defend themselves even with a gun.

Ban the production. Then the military doesn't have firearms. Unlike most products firearms have long self lives if maintained. So then there are still firearms in the black market but law enforcement, military and citizens don't have access.

The Paris attacks show that simply banning weapons doesn't stop aa determined criminal from getting said weapons.

Encryption should also be legal and even if the US gov decided to ban it they wwould be able to control open source encryption. Screw though who want to follow the law and only benefits criminals.

The government could ban production of guns in America, but what about other countries? They would just keep smuggling them in like they already are. It would be completely pointless to ban the production of guns in America.