> other countries have managed to enjoy greater liberty (in particular, fewer murders per capita) Fewer murders aren't an example of greater liberty, they're a

> other countries have managed to enjoy greater liberty (in particular, fewer murders per capita) Fewer murders aren't an example of greater liberty, they're an example of a desirable outcome that some people decide outweighs the loss of liberty. To illustrate, you could also achieve fewer murders through warrantless government spying, and I think you'd agree that that proposal would be pretty hard to spin as increased liberty. > You want an environment where parents need to surround their children with armed guards in order to protect them from armed militias trying to intimidate them into not exercising their right of assembly. Do they want that? I just heard them say they respect the second amendment, nothing about allowing intimidation or making no tradeoffs to the point of requiring armed guards. This feels like a pretty big strawman to tear down the opinion above, rather than acknowledging that it's fine to prioritize safety over liberty but it's also fine to prioritize liberty over safety, and everyone is okay with different tradeoffs.