It’s wild how these junk arguments just keep happening. What governments want is understandable (unreadable online conversations are scary) but impossible without dire consequences
Must have been a rough time before online networks existed.
The internet provides a huge paradigm shift: a while ago the printing press allowed people to read. That spurred the renaissance. Now the internet is allowing people to write.
Before the internet we wouldn't even have this conversation. It's a much more isolated world, where knowledge and propaganda comes mostly top down. Compared to today, rough times indeed.
This is a great quote. I'm gonna steal it from now on :)
This is why this development is so dangerous in the digital realm. Because there is no longer any limit to how much data can be collected and processed.
Why are they scary? Are people's private conversations in their homes scary, too? Are private meetups scary?
I feel like people have by default fallen for the government propaganda and they don't even realize it.
What's next? Putting a chip that can monitor everyone's thoughts in real-time to prevent school shootings? Would the cops even be able to filter through thousands of such thoughts on a daily basis and take action against the most "real" thought? Or would they be flooded by data and not know what to do with it and how to act, and only act after the fact anyway?
Remember for virtually all of the terrorist attacks in the past 15 years, the authorities were already well aware of the attackers' history. Some had even been arrested before and released.
None of these surveillance laws is the right solution to those types of problems. Those problems have other fundamental causes that create them (economic policy, education policy, healthcare policy, etc).
And the governments know that, too. But such laws have other much bigger benefits for them, such as the ability to spy on any single person that they feel has slighted them in some way at will, so they can destroy that person's life. They care about passing surveillance laws for this reason way more than what they say the reason is in public. Another benefit is spying on individuals for economic benefits, too, such as stealing other countries' or foreign company's trade secrets, etc. But of course you're never going to hear them preach new surveillance laws for those reasons.
Funny, that: school shootings seems to share two traits with CSAM: they are salient (horrible, traumatic, publicised…), but they are also fairly rare. I admit that for CSAM I only suspect it, but school shooting represents a very small fraction of all gun deaths in the US. Which represent only a fraction of violent deaths. Which represent only a (small?) fraction of all deaths. Making a priority of reducing school shootings at the expense of other death reduction policies sounds… somewhere between irrational and dishonest.
It seems to me that trying to ban guns in the name of reducing school shootings is like trying to ban encryption to reduce CSAM: it's fundamental rights (self defence, privacy) vs greater good (school shootings, CSAM). And while many "greater good" people clearly mean well (heck, some even have a point), for others it really is about power and control.
Unsure what point you're trying to make about them being a fraction of all gun deaths, a ban would obviously reduce those as well.
Yes, banning guns would reduce gun deaths. However, the problem is not gun death here, it's violent death: suicides & murders mostly. It's not clear to me that banning guns would reduce those deaths. People can use ropes, clubs, and knives instead. And while mass shootings would no longer happen, we need to remember that they only represent about 0.1% of all gun deaths. They almost don't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Finally there are two little snags: first, can we even ban guns for real? Black markets are a thing. Second, taking guns away from people could be a risky business if not handled with extreme care, especially in the US where second amendment advocacy resonates with so many people.