# There are two great evils: Freedom and Suppression of Freedom.



## Man of Ethics (Aug 14, 2021)

A new phrase I came up with recently:  *There are two great evils: Freedom and Suppression of Freedom.*

Every type of Freedom: Speech, Economic Freedom, etc.  brings severe negative consequences to Society.  Suppression of Freedom also brings negative consequences to Society.

In case of Speech, Suppression of Freedom seems to be the Greater Evil.
In case of Guns, Freedom seems to be the Greater Evil.


----------



## itfitzme (Aug 14, 2021)

That's a balance starting point.

Again, it's a measure of risk, risk being the severity of the consequence times the probability of the consequence. In economic terms, Risk = Cost x Expectation. In business, and insurance, were $ serve as a gross measure of cost, risk is a common concept.

Absolute freedom has never existed, relative to others, except in the cases of kings or simply living alone. As soon as there is more than one person,then it doesn't exist except for the monarch.  Philosophy has written about this since time honored.

But I'm tired right now so lost my freedom to stay awake.


----------



## MarathonMike (Aug 14, 2021)

You are ignoring mental illness and drug culture as major contributors to "gun deaths". The guns are inanimate, non-thinking devices. Guns are are not evil. Ownership of them is not evil.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Aug 14, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> A new phrase I came up with recently:  *There are two great evils: Freedom and Suppression of Freedom.*
> 
> Every type of Freedom: Speech, Economic Freedom, etc.  brings severe negative consequences to Society.  Suppression of Freedom also brings negative consequences to Society.
> 
> ...


And the tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners that aren't a danger to anyone?  Their freedoms?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> In case of Guns, Freedom seems to be the Greater Evil.


423,000,000 guns in the US.
~10,500 gun-related murders in the US - 1 gun in 40,000
~24,500 gun-relates suicides in the US - 1 gun in 17,000
~ 100,000 defensive gun uses per year -- 9.5x more often than murder and 4x more often than suicide
Thus:
You have no rational basis whatsoever for your claim


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 15, 2021)

MarathonMike said:


> You are ignoring mental illness and drug culture as major contributors to "gun deaths". *The guns are inanimate, non-thinking devices. Guns are are not evil.* Ownership of them is not evil.


The same could be said about strong drugs, yet they are illegal.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 15, 2021)

LuckyDuck said:


> And the tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners that aren't a danger to *anyone*?  Their freedoms?


Many are danger to themselves.  Most suicide attempts without guns fail.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 15, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> 423,000,000 guns in the US.
> ~10,500 gun-related murders in the US - 1 gun in 40,000
> ~24,500 gun-relates suicides in the US - 1 gun in 17,000
> ~ 100,000 defensive gun uses per year -- 9.5x more often than murder and 4x more often than suicide
> ...


Most defensive gun users prevent something like *simple assault *-- not a major crime.


----------



## John T. Ford (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> A new phrase I came up with recently:  *There are two great evils: Freedom and Suppression of Freedom.
> 
> Every type of Freedom: Speech, Economic Freedom, etc.  brings severe negative consequences to Society.*  Suppression of Freedom also brings negative consequences to Society.
> 
> ...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Most defensive gun users prevent something like *simple assault *-- not a major crime.


OOooh...  defensive gun uses don't count unless they stop a _serious _crime.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Prove your claim to be true, and then demonstrate that only "serious" crimes matter.

You have no rational basis whatsoever for your claim


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Most suicide attempts without guns fail.


You cannot demonstrate this to be true.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> The same could be said about strong drugs, yet they are illegal.


And we see how well - that - works.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> In case of Guns, Freedom seems to be the Greater Evil.


The problem is, what would be the ‘remedy’ to this ‘greater evil.’

Certainly ‘bans’ and more restrictions aren’t the answer.

Indeed, such ‘remedies’ would likely be un-Constitutional.


----------



## progressive hunter (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> A new phrase I came up with recently:  *There are two great evils: Freedom and Suppression of Freedom.*
> 
> Every type of Freedom: Speech, Economic Freedom, etc.  brings severe negative consequences to Society.  Suppression of Freedom also brings negative consequences to Society.
> 
> ...




to date a gun has never killed a single person,,

and I will take freedom over anything,,,


----------



## Adrenochrome Junkie (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> A new phrase I came up with recently:  *There are two great evils: Freedom and Suppression of Freedom.*
> 
> Every type of Freedom: Speech, Economic Freedom, etc.  brings severe negative consequences to Society.  Suppression of Freedom also brings negative consequences to Society.
> 
> ...


So you’re blaming guns for suicide. I guess we should ban high rises, bridges, and car exhaust as well


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 15, 2021)

Adrenochrome Junkie said:


> So you’re blaming guns for suicide. I guess we should ban high rises, bridges, and car exhaust as well


No -- just dangerous weapons and drugs.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 15, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> to date a gun has never killed a single person,,
> 
> and I will take freedom over anything,,,


Fentanyl by itself has not killed anyone.  Most narcotics are banned.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 15, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The problem is, what would be the ‘remedy’ to this ‘greater evil.’
> 
> Certainly ‘bans’ and more restrictions aren’t the answer.
> 
> Indeed, such ‘remedies’ would likely be un-Constitutional.


Sad but true -- US Constitution has major flaws.


----------



## progressive hunter (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Fentanyl by itself has not killed anyone.  Most narcotics are banned.


and they shouldnt be,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Sad but true -- US Constitution has major flaws.


what would you consider a flaw??


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 15, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> what would you consider a flaw??


1)  No guarantee of Free Speech

2)  Access to guns which are used in over 30,000 violent deaths each year in USA alone


----------



## progressive hunter (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> 1)  No guarantee of Free Speech
> 
> 2)  Access to guns which are used in over 30,000 violent deaths each year in USA alone


we are guaranteed it from government restriction,,

and those same guns stopped millions of violent crimes a yr and a lot more deaths,, and thats not even getting into the government tyrany theyve stopped,,


----------



## Adrenochrome Junkie (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> No -- just dangerous weapons and drugs.


So guns aren’t dangerous weapons?
Your chart isn’t a chart for “gun deaths”?

you’re a jackass


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 15, 2021)

Adrenochrome Junkie said:


> So guns aren’t dangerous weapons?
> Your chart isn’t a chart for “gun deaths”?
> 
> you’re a jackass


Suicide is enabled by guns.  Strange how many Conservatives are willing to "put a stumbling block before the blind".


----------



## progressive hunter (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Suicide is enabled by guns.  Strange how many Conservatives are willing to "put a stumbling block before the blind".


so are bridges and tall buildings,,


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 15, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> so are bridges and tall buildings,,


They can not be banned.

Narcotics and guns can be banned.


----------



## Adrenochrome Junkie (Aug 15, 2021)

So


Relative Ethics said:


> Suicide is enabled by guns.  Strange how many Conservatives are willing to "put a stumbling block before the blind".


people won’t kill themselves if they didn’t have a gun.

I stand by my belief that you are a jackass or just really naive and dumb. But most likely, a jackass. Especially being that your name has “ethics” in it


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 15, 2021)

Adrenochrome Junkie said:


> So
> 
> people won’t kill themselves if they didn’t have a gun


They would still try.  And 20% of those who try would succeed.


----------



## progressive hunter (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> They can not be banned.
> 
> Narcotics and guns can be banned.


banned hasnt worked for drugs now has it,,

and history proves banning guns results in more deaths than before the ban,,,


----------



## Adrenochrome Junkie (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> They would still try.  And 20% of those who try would succeed.


There are 1 million ways to kill yourself, jackass


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Sad but true -- US Constitution has major flaws.


Feel free to amend it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Suicide is enabled by guns.


You cannot demonstrate this to be true.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> ...guns can be banned.


^^^^
This is a lie


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> A new phrase I came up with recently: *There are two great evils: Freedom and Suppression of Freedom.*
> 
> Every type of Freedom: Speech, Economic Freedom, etc. brings severe negative consequences to Society. Suppression of Freedom also brings negative consequences to Society.
> 
> ...



  Tyrants tend to see freedom as _“evil”_ when others choose to exercise their freedoms in ways that the tyrants do not like.

  All that you have accomplished here is to demonstrate this point rather vividly.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> The same could be said about strong drugs, yet they are illegal.



  Drug abuse is quite universally harmful to those who engage in it, as well as to those closely associated with them.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Most defensive gun users prevent something like *simple assault *-- not a major crime.



  Whether that is true or not, are you trying to argue that an innocent person successfully defending himself against an assault by a criminal is a bad thing?

  Are you on the side of subhuman criminal pieces of shit, or are you on the side of human beings?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Sad but true -- US Constitution has major flaws.


  It's biggest flaw is a lack of teeth—that corrupt politicians who violate it do not face severe adverse consequences for doing so.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 15, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Whether that is true or not, are you trying to argue that an innocent person successfully defending himself against an assault by a criminal is a bad thing?
> 
> Are you on the side of *subhuman criminal pieces of shit,* or are you on the side of human beings?


No.  I am on the side of suicide victim-perpetrators.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 15, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> No.  I am on the side of suicide victim-perpetrators.


You mean the people who are dead because they want to be?


----------



## whitehall (Aug 15, 2021)

Maybe "freedom" seems evil to those who wish to suppress it but the greatest evil is propaganda disguised as truth.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 15, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> You mean the people who are dead because they want to be?


No one has a right to commit murder or suicide.  

As a Jew I do not believe that Punishment is eternal, but they will suffer for centuries.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Most defensive gun users prevent something like *simple assault *-- not a major crime.



Whether assault is a major crime depends on whether or not you are the one being assaulted.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> No one has a right to commit murder or suicide.
> 
> As a Jew I do not believe that Punishment is eternal, but they will suffer for centuries.



I do not believe in allowing a criminal to murder an innocent person.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> No one has a right to commit murder or suicide.


This does not in any way change the fact that -everyone- who killed himself with a gun is dead because he wants to be.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 16, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> I do not believe in allowing a criminal to murder an innocent person.


Guns are much more likely to be used in criminal homicide then in justifiable homicide.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 16, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Whether assault is a major crime depends on whether or not you are the one being assaulted.


Most assaults that happen are of misdemeanor level.


----------



## progressive hunter (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Guns are much more likely to be used in criminal homicide then in justifiable homicide.


and they are far more likely to stop criminal homicide,,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Most assaults that happen are of misdemeanor level.


so??
doesnt mean you cant protect yourself from it,,


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Guns are much more likely to be used in criminal homicide then in justifiable homicide.



That is comparing the number of times a criminal kills with it versus the number of times a legal gun owner kills with a gun.

A gun is much, much more likely to be used to stop a crime than to kill someone.

And our guns are secured unless we need them.   And we will not hesitate to use them if needed.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Guns are much more likely to be used in criminal homicide then in justifiable homicide.


A meaningless metric, as you know, because the defensive use of a firearm does not necessitate a discharge of said firearm.
Why do you repeat something you know to be irrelevant?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Most assaults that happen are of misdemeanor level.


You cannot demonstrate this to be true.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 16, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> You cannot demonstrate this to be true.


A big majority of assault convictions are misdemeanors.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Most assaults that happen are of misdemeanor level.



How does one tell, while allowing ones self to be assaulted, whether it will be a misdemeanor or something worse?     You are suggesting that we allow it and hope for the mercy of a violent criminal?

I think not.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> A big majority of assault convictions are misdemeanors.


Repeating yourself does not change the fact you cannot demonstrate this to be true.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> A big majority of assault convictions are misdemeanors.



So a majority of assault cases that are solved and taken to court are misdemeanors.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 16, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> How does one tell, while allowing ones self to be assaulted, whether it will be a misdemeanor or something worse?     You are suggesting that we allow it and hope for the mercy of a violent criminal?
> 
> I think not.


Escalating violence with a gun is hardly going to help.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 16, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Repeating yourself does not change the fact you cannot demonstrate this to be true.


I apologize for not having statistics at hand.  My fault.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Escalating violence with a gun is hardly going to help.


Responding to violence already visited upon you is not an escalation.
Why do you hate the fact people defend themselves with firearms FAR more often that people are killed with firearms?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> I apologize for not having statistics at hand.  My fault.


If that's how you want to explain away a claim you know you cannot prove to be true - I then accept your concession of the point.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 16, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Responding to violence already visited upon you is not an escalation.
> Why do you hate the fact people defend themselves with firearms FAR more often that people are killed with firearms?


I do not find comparison between fending off a *simple assault* and things like murder and suicide valid.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Escalating violence with a gun is hardly going to help.



It will help the potential victim/innocent party.     As for the violent attacker, that is much less of a concern to me.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 16, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> If that's how you want to explain away a claim you know you cannot prove to be true - I then accept your concession of the point.


I guess Simple Assault is the most common form of Assault, but I am not an expert.  Here.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 16, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> *It will help the potential victim/innocent party.*     As for the violent attacker, that is much less of a concern to me.


I am not sure escalating any confrontation can help anyone.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> I do not find comparison between fending off a *simple assault* and things like murder and suicide valid.


Fact remains:  You have the right to defend yourself from assault, with deadly force, if you have a reasonable fear of harm.
Thus, your opinion does not matter.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> I guess Simple Assault is the most common form of Assault, but I am not an expert.  Here.


Your source proves your claim false.
Well done.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 16, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Fact remains:  You have the right to defend yourself from assault, with dedlty force, if you have a reasonable fear of harm.
> Thus, your opinion does not matter.


There are about 300-400 *justifiable homicides* per year in USA.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> I am not sure escalating any confrontation can help anyone.


Responding to violence already visited upon you is not an escalation.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> There are about 300-400 *justifiable homicides* per year in USA.


A meaningless metric, as you know, because the defensive use of a firearm does not necessitate a discharge of said firearm.
Why do you repeat something you know to be irrelevant?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> I am not sure escalating any confrontation can help anyone.



It will help the victim not be assaulted.  It will also, likely help stop or delay any future victims of the violent criminal.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> There are about 300-400 *justifiable homicides* per year in USA.



And hundreds of thousands of crimes stopped by armed, law abiding citizens.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> I am not sure escalating any confrontation can help anyone.



As I said, it will help the potential victim.   And it could prevent future assaults by the violent criminal.

Do you suggest the victims not fight back?   That they simply accept the assault?


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 16, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Do you suggest the victims not fight back?   That they simply accept the assault?


I do not know.  I am not a self-defense expert.  But escalation can harm the victim.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 16, 2021)

I am not an expert in self-defense.

Just Common Sense tells me that most people are not Action Movie heroes.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> I do not know.  I am not a self-defense expert.  But escalation can harm the victim.


Responding to violence already visited upon you is not an escalation.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> I am not an expert in self-defense.
> Just Common Sense tells me that most people are not Action Movie heroes.


You admit you have no idea what you;re talking about, and then opine on something you just admitted to having no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> I do not know.  I am not a self-defense expert.  But escalation can harm the victim.



And passively taking an assault won't harm the victim?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> I am not an expert in self-defense.
> 
> Just Common Sense tells me that most people are not Action Movie heroes.



Most people can learn to shoot effectively if they invest a little time in it.    And having situational awareness and a plan make you even more prepared.

We have discussed, at length, what we will do if someone breaks into our house in the middle of the night.    I'll put money on us over the criminal.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Aug 16, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Responding to violence already visited upon you is not an escalation.
> Why do you hate the fact people defend themselves with firearms FAR more often that people are killed with firearms?



  It makes perfect sense, as long as you assume that Relative Ethics is on the side of the subhuman criminal shit, and against the side of human beings.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 16, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> It makes perfect sense, as long as you assume that Relative Ethics is on the side of the subhuman criminal shit, and against the side of human beings.


Or, on the side of an all-powerful state - which is more or less the same thing.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 16, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> It makes perfect sense, as long as you assume that Relative Ethics is on the side of the subhuman criminal shit, and against the side of human beings.


I am on the side of perpetrator-victims of suicides.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> I am on the side of perpetrator-victims of suicides.


You are on the side of people who are dead because they want to be dead.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 16, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> You are on the side of people who are dead because they want to be dead.


It is strange that Conservatives advocate for one of the worst sins.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> It is strange that Conservatives advocate for one of the worst sins.


It's even more strange you want to blame conservatives for the deaths of people that chose to die.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Aug 16, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> It's even more strange you want to blame conservatives for the deaths of people that chose to die.


I do not blame anyone except for those who made deadly weapons available.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> *....There are two great evils: Freedom and Suppression of Freedom.*
> 
> ...


Only half right.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 16, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> I do not blame anyone except for those who made deadly weapons available.


Why do yo refuse to blame the people who chose to die?


----------

