[codys]

This is an interesting thought to consider. I'd note that there are people who aren't very happy about the present state of SWAT team usage, prosecuting folks in such a way to require plea deals, and other excesses in the state's exercising of it's powers.

On a specific line:

> If your objection to this is [...] you are also arguing that strong encryption [...] should not be allowed for public use

This is a false equivalence: asking for restrictions on the state is not equivalent to asking for restrictions on the public.

Also in general, there is no requirement to make "digital violence" the same as "physical violence". The state's use of violence is restricted by law, I don't see a reason the forbidding of "digital violence" would fall outside the legal framework already established.