Michael Shermer - The Case for Stricter Gun Control
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 жов 2024
- Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic Magazine, makes the case for stricter gun control laws at the University of San Diego's Center for Ethics, Economics, and Public Policy. Shermer's remarks are part of a debate with Michael Huemer. Watch the whole video here: • DEBATE: Does America N... .
You CAN own a tank. There are many in private possession.
yes and you can also own surface to air missiles with the right tax stamp
this whole talk was terrible
laws don't stop criminals
So therefore no laws?
Some of the places with the highest levels of gun violence also have the strictest gun laws. Chicago for example.
"highly trained officers do not count as good guys with guns because they are highly trained"
yeah tell yourself that, most cops barely shoot once a year
"Seal team six would assassinate you in your sleep so that means your rifle and pistol are worthless"
because of course seal team six is going to be used on door to door raids on normal people
"there are already restrictions on nuclear weapons so clearly we all agree that the second amendment is not enforceable as written"
I don't even need to address this
Shermer is a big brain, but he is trying to make a case from an artificial perspective. He fails to adequately address how many would diminish in the absence of guns and history has shown that to be significant. Big gun versus small gun argument is silly. It's not about winning every fight. It's about putting a price on oppression. When a superior force stands against you, only cowards run or surrender. The brave fight and if they have to die today because that's the difference between answering the call of eternity or living death. "In other words it's the guns..." isn't an argument. Guns don't make decisions. They don't whisper into the gun owner's ear. Guns are not magic. You can describe all the crimes you want that involve guns and they are not any more causally related than the fact the criminals ate breakfast before robbing the cafe. Breakfasts don't lead to crime, though they always precede them. lol Which is more dangerous? A gun or a mind? Shall we start restricting how smart people are allowed to be? Or restrict the kind of things they can know how to do? Can you control my production capacity and still claim you aren't a socialist? This is not a simple thing. "Just control the guns." lol ya, right.
I get the impression you don't have the first idea what you're talking about Anthony. Shermer showed history in his graphs. Have you seen different data?
@@robbie_ Data isn't the issue. His data can be correct and still beside the larger point. It's not hard to present data showing a lion lives longer in a zoo than the wild. No one would argue that having 24 hour care doesn't lead to "better" results on virtually all metrics...except the one that matters most...living a real life in the real world. Freedom is more valuable than lifespan. Pet's live longer, though. No argument there. I'll take my chances in the open market, thanks.
@@robbie_ You do not even provide any claim that counters Anthony's. Just a passing by ad hominem and then an appeal to authority. It would have been helpful if you cited where in the graphs Shermer showed where causality was demonstrated, but we both know that the data wouldn't show that. Because that kind of data would require actually studying what criminals think and what causes them to do crime - something the people who like to bury those issues will just claim "poverty" or "oppression" and then move on really quickly like the argument is settled.
An entertaining if extremely inaccurate presentation. This well known and well respected skeptic seems to have fallen into the trap of using falsifiable hyperbole as the keynotes of each of his main points. His wild west info is accurate, but the causality was not really discussed.
The argument that ordinary weapons are useless against a modern military is common. Tell that to the Viet Cong and dozens of other gorilla and terrorist movements. Do you think the guys who run the drones and drive the tanks might have to go lunch. An ordinary rifle could kill a tank crewman at lunch. It is unlikely that the entire U.S. military would be on one side in a conflict. I have not seen the full video but this is slanted. That is to be expected. He is advocating his position. I look forward to the full video.
Michael Huemer has left the chat...lol
This was absolute nonsense.
Yet you failed to counter any point.
@@robbie_ because he has no counter point.
@@squatch545 What is there to counter?
Because now suicides and homicides with guns are higher than car accident deaths "we need" to do something is such a convincing argument? That's his entire premise for gun control. That is an incredibly arbitrary standpoint, so silly that if his entire premise relies on that then I can just dismiss it without any effort. It would have been helpful if Shermer actually demonstrated a causal link between gun ownership and homicides or suicides. you realize he never demonstrated that, right?
Or did you want us to argue back at his insane argument that we don't need pistols or rifles to fight a tyrannical government because Seal Team Six could assassinate us in our sleep?
@@newerest1 Talk about an insane argument. You're saying gun-related deaths are not related to guns? Holy shit what a fucking moron. No wonder the public is fed up with gun nuts. And yes, tens of thousands of gun deaths IS a good argument for gun control. Just like tens of thousands of deaths is a good argument for seat belts.
I'm all for fighting a tyrannical gov't. Why don't you actually fucking do it for a change, instead of just talking about it? Huh? Mr internet tough guy?
Very good Mr Shermer. I certainly wouldn't be here today if gun ownership was uncontrolled here in the UK.
You probably would be alive
@@firstlast8081 I wouldn't. I'd have shot myself.