Don't assume all, or even many, Republican voters believe this. Those of a more libertarian bent unequivocally do not.

Sure, many of the politicians seem to support outlawing encryption. But that's true of both parties is it not?

Stop spreading partisan crap. Read the first response to that comment.

My favorite is the hippies who argue that we should legalize drugs because outlawing them didn't stop people from getting drugs- while also arguing that we should outlaw guns to stop people from getting guns.

That's a misleading comparison. I think the argument is that if you have a gun you can protect yourself from another person with a gun. A better analogy would be how some jurisdictions make bullet proof vests and gas masks illegal because they can be used (by bad people) to thwart police.

Dianne Feinstein isn't a Republican and she wants to take away our encryption, too.

The output of good encryption algorithms is indistinguishable from noise. And you can embed noise in anything, like in images, or in audio or video streams. And this is a worst case scenario, assuming the US convinces the whole world to ban encryption, which is highly unlikely. I mean besides the terrorists meeting the old fashioned way, in person.

I'm pro-encryption, but I think your argument is lazy and not fact-based. We see from this article that criminals are not particularly skilled at hiding their communications.

You and I both want a world where encryption is ubiquitous and easy to use. Where text messages are somehow encrypted-by-default. That does mean in this instance police would have had to use some other means to apprehend Abaaoud. That's a cost of everyone having privacy. Banning encryption will stop the majority of violent/petty criminals who are not educated and poorly funded from using it. I won't claim otherwise. I think the answer, as always, is educating people and making sure they have decent responsibilities and resources at their disposal so they won't want to do harm. People who can trust their government to give them privacy and protect their interests won't lash out.

This is my response to the "but I have nothing to hide" argument. You may not have an obvious reason to want your identity hidden, nor may I. But someone else may have a legitimate reason. A whistleblower, a victim of domestic violence, a political refugee, a newspaper reporter investigating corruption in a police department. Do you think these people should be able to make use of encryption and anonymity? Of course. But if they are the only ones trying to stay private, that privacy is a spotlight shining on their actions. It draws the attention of people who would take advantage of them and threatens their ability to protect themselves.

Privacy, anonymity, and encryption protect the people who need them only when they are pervasive. The same way vaccines protect people who are susceptible to infection. Saying "I have nothing to hide" is akin to not getting a flu shot because you feel healthy. That's not how it works. You need that herd immunity or the virus will find cracks to survive in. When you refuse a vaccine or allow invasion of privacy because you don't feel threatened you're putting yourself ahead of people who are most at risk of being harmed by the disease or put in danger by having personal details become known.