• Draghetta@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Totally, except regulating encryption makes much more sense because of al those encryption-violence deaths that happen daily in the US. All those kids with easy access to encryption going to school and encrypting their classmates, the policemen not intervening because they are afraid to get encrypted by the kids armed with military grade AES-512 routines.

    It is a modern analog, but with its limits - all this stuff doesn’t happen in countries where encryption is much more regulated and you can’t buy encryption routines in malls.

    • Melllvar@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Your comment comes off as shallow and dismissive. I’d be happy to discuss this further, but not under those conditions.

      • Bluetreefrog@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I thought @draghetta made a good point in way that wasn’t particularly shallow or dismissive. Not trying to stir hostility here, just throwing in my 2 currency subunits.

        • Melllvar@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          To clarify, I disagree because you’re both missing my point, which is to explain and help people understand, and not an argument put forward in justification of anything.

          Responding to an attempt to help bridge a gap of understanding by sarcastically dismissing any value in the analogy without even attempting to understand why it’s being offered is, to me, a dismissive and shallow thing to do.

              • Pogbom@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Addressing any of the points being made to you would be a great start. The first comment that you called shallow was a pretty good summary of why people support strict gun control, even if it was said sarcastically.

                • Melllvar@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Their point is that there are accidental and intentional, even mass, shootings. I don’t dispute this. I’m not even against reasonable gun control laws.

                  But this was supposed to be a discussion about understanding an American perspective. Not sarcastically deriding any attempt to do so.

                  • Pogbom@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    So then it wasn’t shallow and dismissive at all, you just didn’t appreciate the delivery. The points they made were perfectly valid and, ironically, calling them shallow and dismissing was itself shallow and dismissive. It just seems more like you used a bad analogy but can’t take the criticism.