[names_are_hard]

Just curious: do you also apply this argument to the the gun control debate in the United States?

In any case, it's quite possible that making something dangerous illegal does indeed stop some would-be bad guys. The truly committed criminals break the law and gain access to the contraband, while the casual/less intelligent criminal is stopped.

You have to make a call: is the reduction, but not complete elimination, of bad things worth the loss of value derived from allowing law-abiding people access to encryption/guns? That's a difficult question because its answer depends not just on how much bad will actually be prevented but the subjective value you personally place on the good these things provide.

[hvis]

Removing guns from easy access means removing the very means that a lot of crimes are perpetrated with. Including crimes of passion (non-premeditated ones).

Not so with encryption.

And since the terrorist cases are really aberrations in our times (there are very few incidents, realistically speaking, compared to other kinds of crime and other causes of death), the perpetrators must be significantly motivated individuals (or groups) that are unlikely to be deterred by E2E encryption being unavailable in the popular chat apps.

[MauranKilom]

It's an interesting point you make, but there's a fundamental difference between E2EE communication and guns. Mass shootings require guns. They do not require E2EE communication.

Yes, regulating both could reduce the "bad things", but clearly to very different degree. They would both cause "reduction, but not complete elimination", but equating them does not make sense in my eyes.

[TheRealPomax]

If you could just download a gun and some ammo in the US, using any internet-connected device? Absolutely.

But we can't, and you know we can't, so I can only assume you're trolling. Stop.