Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheHydroImpulse | Hacker News Reader

They become pretty weak for encryption except #1. Moreover, there are real arguments for the inherit danger in owning a gun, statistically. It's a fact that you're more likely to commit suicide or someone gets killed because you own a gun.

You can't say the same about encryption because it's a tool, not a weapon. A gun is a weapon meant to kill.

> 2. Compromises will just lead to defeat for the pro-encryption / pro-gun side.

A compromise in encryption hurts everybody. The whole platform for electronic banking needs strong encryption, for example.

> Consequentialism: the number of people being harmed by encryption/guns is smaller than the number of people who would be harmed by living in a world without encryption/guns.

If you own a gun you are statistically more likely to get shot or killed.

View on HN

> If you own a gun you are statistically more likely to get shot or killed.

Or is it that if you have reason to believe you might get shot or killed, you are more likely to buy a gun?

I don't have an account, but I just made one because I'm genuinely curious about whether you have a good source for this claim. The usual study referenced for this is deeply flawed; if I remember correctly it examines people who were shot and checks whether they owned a gun. Of course that study is completely invalid because of the selection bias involved. P(X owns a gun | X gets shot) is not the same as P(X gets shot | X owns a gun).

There is also data showing for example that "the higher a state's firearm ownership rate, the lower its firearm homicide rate" – see https://www.facebook.com/UnbiasedAmerica/photos/a.1301843271..., based on FBI data.

While agreeing with you that there are some statistically terrible high profile studies (such as failure to control for cases where the subject acquired a gun explicitly because they thought someone was planning to shoot them), I think it is still true that owning a gun causally increases your likelihood of being shot.

The biggest reason is suicide. If you don't own a gun, you are much less likely to intentionally shoot yourself. The second reason is accidental shootings. If there is no gun in your house, there is practically no chance that you will accidentally shoot yourself, or that your toddler will accidentally shoot you.

Of course, the question that's really being asked is whether an individual is at greater risk of being shot intentionally by someone else if they own a gun or not. This is where the data is much thinner. This seems like a solid review article: http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks%20and%20Benefits%20o...

Their conclusion at the bottom of page 4 and top of page 5 is even after "controlling for illicit drug use, fights, arrests, living alone, and whether or not the home was rented", that "Yes, owning a gun increases your risk of death by gunshot". Still, I'd be interested in seeing a study that breaks apart statistics for hand guns and long guns.

(Welcome to HN!)

If you use encryption, you are more likely to lose your own data.

It's much easier to blow away a LUKS header than an entire disk.

Prudent folk put their LUKS volumes on RAID10 arrays.

And they keep header backups.

It's about rights, not risk factors!

In case you didn't realize it, you're arguing for paternalistic authoritarianism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com