I said why. Because not of what you have done, but because of the potential of the tool. I just expressed the significant differences in how encryption could be used as a tool for crime compared to a gun. Moreover, all criminals were at one point law abiding citizens. The distinction is that, until using encryption is a crime or communications are a crime, the law abiding citizen who gets his hands on encryption does not substantially modify his ability to commit a crime. A gun does. And, the sloth of your LPD notwithstanding, we do not prevent a sane, law abiding citizen from getting a gun. We merely make sure the hands we put a gun in are in fact those of a sane, law abiding hands (without a background check, there is no way to know you are a sane, law abiding citizen).

Again, lets use the mental illness example. In one case, the Mentally ill person gets ahold of encryption and wants to kill someone. The worst they can do is hide his communications with a contract killer. The encryption might have helped, but it isn’t doing the killing, nor is it facilitating a crime that otherwise could not have happened as the communication could have happened over other untracable communication lines, such as in-person or via snail mail. In all situations with encryption, the mentall ill can not take direct, immediate action. Contrast with a mentally ill person getting a gun. In a reasonable scenario, they kill the person they want to kill. Potentially some bystanders. maybe its the bystanders that they want to kill. In any case, the gun allows them to take direct immediate action upon their whims. A background check can help prevent people with no criminal record (law abiding citizen) with known mental health problems (I know a guy with paranoid schizophrenia, hes great 95% of the time on his meds, but the other 5%?) don’t get a hold of weapons that allow him to act on impulses coming from a damaged psyche.

Cars are deadly in the wrong hands. So we regulate the shit out of them. Licences, regestration, mandatory insurance, tests both written and practical. Encryption is not deadly, its not a weapon, and we don’t need to track who has it.

You have a very flawed premise. Police don’t like locked doors because criminals use them. Should we require a permit for a door lock? Police don’t like cheap pay as you go phones because criminals use these ‘burners’. Should we require a permit for them? Guns are not controlled because law enforcement doesn’t like that criminals might use them. They are controlled because evidence has shown that sensible gun control laws save lives.

To debate with me, you really need to address why this comparison is, despite my claims, not actually an apples to oranges comparison. You made the claim that they are the same with your only evidence being that law enforcement dislikes both for the same reason. I responded by giving you clear reasons why they should not be treated the same by law. Your response was to again make the claim that they are the same because law enforcement dislikes both. So I again have demonstrated a line of reasoning that expresses the fact that they are different and should be treated differently. Now I am going to ask something of you. Prove your point. You made the claim that guns are the apple to encryption’s apple. You claim they are the same. I can show that gun control solves both a law enforcement problem (registration helps track guns used in crimes) and a public interest problem (reducing crime by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill). Can you bring up any evidence of how a permit system for encryption would solve either a law enforcement problem (They don’t want it at all), or a public interest one?