Comment Re:I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here... (Score 1) 837
The gun control arguments are a strong case that indicates US citicens think violence is an answer. It isn't. The Taliban almost won a civil war. I don't think they did really "outlaw" guns, they just collected them to use them against their remaining enemies. They just think that violence is an answer. Also note that it's impossible to collect guns in a country where most people live in villages and have a million holes in the mountains to hide their own guns if they did want to keep them. The Taliban certainly got only guns from supporters.
Also, the argument "strict gun control means that only criminal have guns" is wrong. Europe generally has what is consideret "strict gun controls", yet million people here have access to firearms: soldiers and police, security services, hunters, people practicing firearm sports, people who convinced the authorities that they need guns to protect themselves. Sometimes, people arm themselves even though they aren't allowed to (e.g. in Munich, a gas station's owner shot a policeman, who robbed gas stations in his spare time, using his police gun).
However, the overall picture of Europe is that the general crime level doesn't differ from the crime level in USA that much (though we don't put 3% of our adults into jail), while murder, especially using firearms, is way down. Between Washington DC and Brussel, there's a factor of 170! And that's though Washington DC by the letter even has firearm control (doesn't help - it's just on paper, and nobody checks at the "borders").
I don't think that strict gun control (in our, European sense) would bring down US murder rate to a civilized level. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And only severely deranged people are able to kill other people. However, the arguments exchanged in gun control discussion show that too many US people are somewhat deranged. They actually considder using deadly forces to protect them.
The final point however is, that if you think using guns against oppressive governments is ok, you agree that terrorism is ok. Well, you say "freedom fighter" instead of terrorism, but that's it.
Guns do not equal encryption. Encryption is just an envelope that keeps others from reading your mail. Encrypting is completely free of any violence, and still provides a mean of security (it allows secure transactions of whatever you think off: TANs for online banking, love letters you write within the company network and don't want your supervisor to be read, company secrets you don't want to expose to industry spies like Echelon, and so on). Encrypting secures your basic rights.
Yes, you can use encryptiong to coordinate efforts that do cause harm, but it's not the encrypted e-mail that crashed the WTC, it was carpet knifes, planes, and kerosine. Nobody would want to outlaw these, because carpet knifes, planes, and kerosine obviously are almost always used for good.
Also, the argument "strict gun control means that only criminal have guns" is wrong. Europe generally has what is consideret "strict gun controls", yet million people here have access to firearms: soldiers and police, security services, hunters, people practicing firearm sports, people who convinced the authorities that they need guns to protect themselves. Sometimes, people arm themselves even though they aren't allowed to (e.g. in Munich, a gas station's owner shot a policeman, who robbed gas stations in his spare time, using his police gun).
However, the overall picture of Europe is that the general crime level doesn't differ from the crime level in USA that much (though we don't put 3% of our adults into jail), while murder, especially using firearms, is way down. Between Washington DC and Brussel, there's a factor of 170! And that's though Washington DC by the letter even has firearm control (doesn't help - it's just on paper, and nobody checks at the "borders").
I don't think that strict gun control (in our, European sense) would bring down US murder rate to a civilized level. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And only severely deranged people are able to kill other people. However, the arguments exchanged in gun control discussion show that too many US people are somewhat deranged. They actually considder using deadly forces to protect them.
The final point however is, that if you think using guns against oppressive governments is ok, you agree that terrorism is ok. Well, you say "freedom fighter" instead of terrorism, but that's it.
Guns do not equal encryption. Encryption is just an envelope that keeps others from reading your mail. Encrypting is completely free of any violence, and still provides a mean of security (it allows secure transactions of whatever you think off: TANs for online banking, love letters you write within the company network and don't want your supervisor to be read, company secrets you don't want to expose to industry spies like Echelon, and so on). Encrypting secures your basic rights.
Yes, you can use encryptiong to coordinate efforts that do cause harm, but it's not the encrypted e-mail that crashed the WTC, it was carpet knifes, planes, and kerosine. Nobody would want to outlaw these, because carpet knifes, planes, and kerosine obviously are almost always used for good.
