WATCH: Ben Shapiro TEARS APART this leftist's fake argument for gun control in a hot second. --- Watch more #onlyatYAF videos every day! Click now to connect with us on Facebook: / youngamericasfoundation
I'd ask the kid a reverse of his own question: How do you protest against gun violence, but at the same time advocate for the killing of unborn children?
Ravenous No, that’s not even close to being the same thing. One is a developing amalgamation of cells unable to think, or even look remotely Human in most abortions. Do you think doctors are delivering fully-developed babies and then sacrificing them to Satan or something? Up to 24 weeks is the absolute maximum for an abortion. Even then at 24 weeks they are not able to survive. If they are born by this time it’s almost certain they’ll suffocate. You care so much about them actually being born you forgot to care if they actually live. People on life support, on the other hand, are thinking, feeling, at least before the support. They were able to survive prior to life support and only needed it because of their precarious situation.
@@SharkyMcSnarkface your point missed it's mark. You are bringing up the fact that they didnt need life support before hand assuming they didnt but there are people alive today that never were able to survive without it. Such an ignorant and disgusting view on life. Abortion is murder. That is a scientific fact. Get over it you worthless child.
Ravenous There it is. There’s the whataboutism. Yeah yeah yeah there are people like that. But again, these people are likely able to feel and think. Answer me, are you pro-life or pro-birth? Because if you cared so much about the baby surely you would care about government programs to help mothers finance their child, right? Improved educational systems, ect. Is not living worse than 18 years or even more of suffering?
andruboy80 Somehow I don’t think you are referring to Joseph Bonaparte, brother of Napoleon and King of Spain, but I really can’t think of who else you mean.
The quality is exactly what you'd expect from someone who just formulated an answer on the spot with zero thought. So maybe Shapiro should take more time to think BEFORE giving an answer? 🤷♂️
I'm just as far RIght wing as you can get - but if you think a TINY clump of cells smaller than the eye can see is a HUMAN LIFE you're actually an absolute moron and need to stay away from politics. We're not talking about 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions here - we're talking about a small clump of cells that you need a fucking microscope to see - This isnt a human.
@@nuck- if that "TINY clump of cells" isn't human life, what type of life is it? not attempting to troll. I am honestly curious to see what your answer is (if you have one).
@@nuck- a clump of cells in the human body indeed does not necessarily a human being make. even a tumor is a part of the human body. initially, it has the same DNA as the donor, then it mutates, resulting in uncontrollable growth. but at all stages its DNA is traceable back to the donor. it doesn’t develop into another human, nor even into another autonomous organism. the fertilized human egg is different. its DNA, from the moment of conception, is entirely unique and distinct from the mother's. scientifically speaking, it is not a part of the mother’s body, which therefore qualifies it as a separate life form. and so I ask again: if it is not a human life, what type of life is it?
@@arciphera I dont debate whether it has human DNA or not from conception. I dont debate whther its a seperate life form. I just dont agree this life form is a human being. Just the same way i dont consider a chicken egg to be a chicken.
Ikr. I'm in high school and this classmate said that every factory worker shud be paid more than the CEO of Apple. I guess it's bc we live in a strange world.
And then they cut him off at the end... probably because they didn't want him clarifying that Shapiro was deflecting and didn't actually answer his question. Just look up Ben Shapiro's interview on BBC with Andrew Neil where Shapiro got TRIGGERED and stormed off in the middle of the interview. That's what happens when Shapiro faces opposition and isn't in control of the event. Shapiro is a hack. 🙄
@@MrShadic999 no, he deflected from the key part of the question, which is that Shapiro wants "government intervention" for abortion to save lives, but doesn't want "government intervention" for guns to save lives. Shapiro's assumptions of what guns were "designed for" is irrelevant to the discussion on gun control. For example, planes are not "designed" to be flown into buildings, but when that happens, we take measures to prevent it from happening, right? So that was a total non-answer. Next, when Shapiro says that guns are for "killing bad guys, *IF* operated by a proper person", that is precisely the point of "government intervention for guns" to prevent BAD GUYS from obtaining guns. Yet Shapiro is OPPOSED to gun control, even things most people agree on like universal background checks. With statements like, *_"Universal Background Checks = Universal Gun Registry. End of story."_* The issue of gun control is not about "banning all guns" as right-wing hacks like Shapiro would have you believe. And as I have said in other threads on this video, I would not use this argument to point out Shapiro's hypocrisy because you can do that just on abortion alone without bringing in other issues into it (like guns), which only seems to confuse people on the issue. So it was a badly framed question, but even at that... Shapiro still didn't answer it.
The kid doesn't even get that his argument could be used for knives, bats, cars, etc...... It is the act of wanting to kill someone that is the issue not the means.
not true at all, an automated rifle can kill hundreds of people in a matter of seconds, a knife will kill maybe 2-3 or up to ill give you even 10 if youre particularly skilled. its not comparable at all. And to that people will obtain illegal abortions if they were made illegal, and all that would be done is more harm would come to the mother. Your argument applies, its the act of wanting to abort, not the means. Except in this case its killing one unborn fetus which is much more feasible than killing a whole movie theater full of people with a knife
@@p.doetsch6209 He chose to omit the fact that guns are much more deadly than bats knives cars etc... I was just pointing out the fact that they are not assimilated, not putting words in his mouth at all
@@M3ricle His point was that you could make the same argument about ANY lethal means. Of course a rifle could do more damage than a knife and bombs could do more damage than a rifle. That's the nature of escalating means. This just shows that when people make bad decisions, it's the people making those decisions that are bad not the means.
@@cousineddie4846 how many examples would you like?... here's one for starters, _"Let's say for the sake of argument that all of the water levels around the world rise by, let's say, five feet over the next 100 years. Say 10 feet over the next 100 years. And it puts all of the low-lying areas on the coast underwater. Let's say all of that happens. You think people aren't just going to sell their homes and move?"_ So who exactly does Shapiro think would be willing to purchase a home that is or will soon be under water? 🤦♂️
Lance Deal, well that's funny, I don't recall ever covering "abortion" or "guns" in my computer science, math, or physics courses at university... you never went to college did you? 🤔
Can he really? Do you think he convinces that many people? Surely that's the sign. I think he's a very poor listener, so not convinced that he has really given things that much thought.
But the questioner was pointing out the incosistency of Ben's demanding a 'hands off, government!" approach to gun laws, yet the exact opposite when it comes to abortion laws.
wylie richardson Well that true as well, but I think this individual should of expected an answer like that. One indeed is necessary the other not so much.
As a European it's extremely odd to see this vicious circle America is in of all these mass shootings and people wanting to own a gun to prevent those very same shootings. Apparently the US govermnent is incapable of protecting its citizens and therefore allows everyone to have their own gun? Which in turn leads to more shootings.
If the kid wants an analogy, ask him: if he believes banning guns will prevent murders, does he believe banning forceps will prevent abortions? Guns and forceps are tools that have legitimate uses for good, and both are also used to kill. Tools don't make decisions.
Bill Mullins, really? That weak strawman argument is the best you've got huh? 🤦♂️ If you want an actual good analogy, we have a metric shit-ton of laws regarding automobiles, such as written and practical tests, licensing, insurance, limits on the kinds of cars you can drive on the road, minimum requirements that your car must have like working blinkers for example, rules of the road you must obey like speed limits for example, seat-belt laws, etc. etc. etc. and yet I NEVER hear you right-wingers claim the government is trying to "ban cars"... why is that??? So what we want is for guns to be "WELL REGULATED" (you know, as it says in the 2nd amendment of the constitution). What is wrong with that? Now, do you also think that we should just eliminate ALL laws regarding automobiles? After all cars don't make decisions... riiiiiiiiight? 🙄 Or do you acknowledge that having these regulations on automobiles SAVES LIVES? Tell me how this is any different from guns... I'll wait. You see right-wingers, _THAT_ is a good analogy. You should all write this down. ;)
@@BootBizarre - it's not all that great an analogy. It's not like there are regulations telling us we can no longer have 6- or 8-cylinder vehicles, but must subsist on 4-cylinder vehicles. Nobody's telling us only police can drive Hummers, or take your pick of vehicles. Most people in the U.S. can easily purchase most types of vehicles for themselves, if they have the money. The regulations primarily surround the use of the vehicles. We already have regulations and laws like that for guns. The regulations the people pushing for gun control want are regulations that heavily restrict access to the guns. Many types of guns and ammo would be banned for the vast majority of people, and there's no telling where the regulation creep would end up.
0:35 is exactly the moment where we can see how stupid Shapiro's arguments really are. Firstly, no abortion ends up with killing of a baby, since baby, by definition, is human being after being born. Secondly, he says guns are not designed to kill children? Is there a mechanism in gun's design that prevent killing of a child?
@@goranmilic442 Here we can see how stupid u are human life in biology begins in eh conception after the singamy happens . There's anything debatable kill is kill, pro-choice believe in a genocide ideology
@@juandiegoaumala3954 Did I say human life doesn't begin with conception? No. (Therefore, here we can see how stupid you are and that you cannot read properly.)
@@goranmilic442 And here it's obvious that your argument is based on ignorance and stupidity alone. Here's the real definition of a fetus: 'an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.' Backed by definition, a fetus is in fact a human baby. A reality which you leftists always ignore.
Obviously he cares about the ones born. You know? Who's going to feed the kid after it's born? Who is going to clothe it, house it, nurture it? If the parent isn't ready, then they will likely not make good parents.
@@SharkyMcSnarkface Then the parents should give the baby up for adoption! Believe it, or not, there are plenty of Christian organizations willing to not only help the mother carry the baby to term, but also find a couple who are willing to adopt a baby. Why murder it?!!
Sharky McSnarkface If you’re not ready to take on the responsibility of being a parent then you have the option of not having sex. Sex is for the emotionally and mentally mature anyways. Otherwise people need to use condoms or other forms of birth control, and still accept that sex ALWAYS comes with the possibility of becoming pregnant, and therefore the responsibility of becoming a parent.
@@videoheap Pro birthers don't care much about children living in poverty or caged in a strange country away from their families. They are alive, living human beings. Not fetal tissue that won't survive.
Ben Shapiro is like a cyborg. He just thinks so fast about these things. If I we're him I would be like "uuuuuh well because you see... uuuuuh well you know they're not really... like they're not really the same...."
No, Shapiro talks fast, he doesn't think fast... there's a big difference! Shapiro is a hack and these events are deliberately setup in a way where Shapiro can _APPEAR_ to have the upper hand even while spouting nonsensical bullshit. Shapiro never actually addressed the student's point, then they cut the student off at the end as you can see his mouth moving but they took the mic away so you couldn't hear what he said, and they sent him away... how convenient. Now the point that the student made that Shapiro never addressed is the hypocrisy of Shapiro (and others on the right) who claim they want "SMALL government" and "LESS government intervention" on things like regulating guns but then they turn around and advocate for "BIG government" and "MORE government intervention" for regulating abortions. Granted this is not an argument I would ever make, because there is plenty of republican hypocrisy on the issue of abortion and I prefer to debate that issue on its own without bringing other issues into it... but I'm merely pointing out the fact that Shapiro never actually addressed the student's point. So maybe Shapiro should SLOW DOWN and actually think before speaking? 🙄
@@BootBizarre Lol how did he not address the guys point? The difference is the purpose of abortion is to kill babies, while the purpose of the guns is to defend yourself. He did address the students point.
@@MelissaRodgers1 I already explained HOW Shapiro did not address the students point... maybe you should read my comment before responding to me? What part of, *_"Now the point that the student made that Shapiro never addressed is the hypocrisy of Shapiro (and others on the right) who claim they want "SMALL government" and "LESS government intervention" on things like regulating guns but then they turn around and advocate for "BIG government" and "MORE government intervention" for regulating abortions."_* did you not understand? 🤔 And by all means, explain to me how republicans blocking universal background checks is about "defending yourself". I'll wait...
Boot Bizarre I just answered that in that one is intervention for the right to defend and the other is intervention for the right to kill. They are two completely different situations. And that was Shapiro’s point. The one not understanding is you because you can’t even see how he responded.
0:35 is exactly the moment where we can see how stupid Shapiro's arguments really are. Firstly, no abortion ends up with killing of a baby, since baby, by definition, is human being after being born. Secondly, he says guns are not designed to kill children? Is there a mechanism in gun's design that prevent killing of a child?
@@goranmilic442 Since you seem to copy paste your mindless argument everywhere, I'll copy paste my response as well. Here it's obvious that your argument is based on ignorance and stupidity alone. Here's the real definition of a fetus: 'an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.' Backed by definition, a fetus is in fact a human baby. A reality which you leftists always ignore. And by your definition, knives also doesn't have a mechanism that prevents it from being used on children.
@@crimsoncourt9354 If you don't mind, I'll answer all here in one place. And I'll skip the insults. Definition of a baby is human being after being born. I googled definition of fetus you suggested. And in every place your definition appeared (word by word, "unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human ??? more than eight weeks after conception"), a word baby is missing. Did you put the word baby or you searched really hard for one page that has word "baby" put into definition of fetus? I didn't say mentally ill people can obtain license for gun, I said they'll have easier access to gun. By taking gun from their home, obtained by another member of their household, for example. Or maybe they had gun before they were ill. Or their mental distress is temporary (like killing someone in rage). When it comes to knives, that's a good argument. However, that doesn't change the fact that Ben's claim (guns are not designed to kill children) is wrong. Design of guns makes killing of everyone possible. And since that was my only point, I don't see what knives have to do with it. You made a straw man argument there, talking about something I didn't actually say.
So you support slavery, in theory? All we have to do is grow a human in an artificial womb and never let them out. They can be 20 and “not be a baby”, therefore stripping them of all human rights in your estimation since they “haven’t been born”. That, or you must admit that your definition or derivative moral claims are incoherent.
Guns can kill anybody. They are made for killing people, no magical force is stopping guns from killing a good person. And being able to legally own gun can protect you, sure, but it can also give a bad guy or mentally ill person easier and cheaper access to guns. Abortion is not killing babies, since baby, by definition, is human being after being born. Shapiro always makes couple of mistakes, but people rarely get them at first, you need to analyze what he said.
@@goranmilic442 You do realise there are background checks for guns, right? And they're not dirt cheap. So no, not anyone can own a gun. Also, seeing as guns save more lives than they take, your point is moot. Human life starts at conception, so yes, you're taking human life when you abort. So you haven't refuted anything.
pietje paalman Bull💩. It’s a baby and you know it. You just want to be able to justify murder because you’re too lazy to use proper birth control or pull out because “it feels so good” you don’t want to pull out
I'm just as far RIght wing as you can get - but if you think a TINY clump of cells smaller than the eye can see is a HUMAN LIFE you're actually an absolute moron and need to stay away from politics. We're not talking about 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions here - we're talking about a small clump of cells that you need a fucking microscope to see - This isnt a human.
@@rpgf8248 awww, are you getting TRIGGERED that I'm invading your little safe space here? 🤣 If you've seen my other discussions then you know that I'm the one bringing the truth to you Shapiro Justice Warriors living in your right-wing bubble. And you should also know that these pathetic attempts at projection do not work on me as I constantly have to point out to right-wing trolls like you. Maybe if you actually had a real argument to present you wouldn't get so TRIGGERED over mine. 🤷♂️
@@rpgf8248 oh, so you're a closeted right-winger... got it! 🤫 By being here, I _AM_ somewhere that people lie and I'm here to correct the lies that Shapiro spouts. Someone has to educate you ignorant right-wingers (even the ones still in the closet) because Shapiro sure as hell isn't doing that.
the goal shouldn't always be to change minds, but to cause people to think critically about their own positions.. also, it may change the way he views folks who hold conservative positions, which is still a good thing.
red 10 I would agree with erin and only add that so often engaging with people like that in these situations isn’t for the benefit of the person being engaged but rather for the benefit of others in the audience who are unsure of where they stand. The person being directly addressed is often smugly sure of themself and will be unwilling to back down even if they a bludgeoned by facts, because they perceive their honor to be on the line and don’t want to appear to the crowd to have lost. All too often, you’re not engaging to reach this person, but rather the kid in the back of the room who is actively working through the issue and forming their own opinion.
@@mmwosu absolutely. it was through one of these types of videos that shapiro's response convinced me that the only logic limit to put on abortions is at conception (example: i used to have my limit for when abortions become morally unacceptable at the formation of the heart beat, but as shapiro mentioned, we have folks walking around with pacemakers.. can we kill them? def. not, ha). through some else's seeming foolish or stubborn question, i clarified my position more. it was very helpful. with debate or even conversation, we are asked to rationalize and support our positions. those explanations help strengthen others in their debating or their own understanding.. lots of benefit for various people.
red 10, the sad thing is I can point out the hypocrisy of your right-wing position on abortion, yet it won't change your mind. Let me prove it... The right pushes making abortion illegal does not reduce the number of abortions. We already tried that shit here in the US as from 1900-1967 abortion was a felony in all 50 states, yet we had higher rates of abortion during that time. Globally countries with illegal abortion and even very strict abortion laws (such as preventing chemo therapy to pregnant women because it would kill the fetus) have higher rates of abortion than countries where it is legal. Also, globally illegal/unsafe abortions is a leading cause of maternal deaths and health problems. And I have plenty more on this, but that's just a teaser. So making abortion illegal is ineffective policy that does not work and only causes more problems. The right pushes abstinence only sex education in schools, which is also shitty policy that results in HIGHER teen pregnancy rates, not lower. The right is also fighting against the contraceptive mandate in the ACA (the ACA has saved women about $1.4 billion per year on contraceptive costs) when providing quality forms of contraceptives is one of the most proven methods to reduce abortions. 75% of abortion patients in the US are low income and 49% make below the national poverty level. That means poverty/finances is a driving factor of abortions and republican policies make this problem worse. They fight against universal healthcare when it costs over $30,000 to give birth (assuming no complications) without healthcare, they fight against a living wage, they fight against social programs that poor people rely on to get by, etc. etc. etc. The right brings absolutely NOTHING to the table to help abortions and only make it worse. You want to help the abortion issue? Support universal healthcare with complete coverage for quality forms of contraceptives like IUD's which have success rates close to sterilizations but are more expensive and require a medical professional to insert them and perform occasional checkups. Support proper sex education in schools instead of that abstinence only bullshit. Support a mandate on paid maternity so that women can take time off from work to have the baby without loosing pay/position/employment. Support a living wage. Support properly funding the social safety net to help those who still fall through the cracks. Etc. Now tell me... did what I say here change your mind on which party has the better position on actually helping the abortion issue? If not, then I have only one thing left to say about you... _"The sad think is this isn't going to change this guy's mind on abortion."_ 🙄
Thank you for providing evidence against the stereotype that all Asians are geniuses by voicing your support for Ben and your belief in ancient myths... 🤣
@Skyler Rogers actually no, that is not at all what I was implying... because not supporting Ben doesn't automatically make someone "smart". I've debated republicans that did not like Ben, but that certainly didn't make them "smart" because they were still republicans. I also never implied you _CAN'T_ have stupid beliefs. You have every right to have stupid beliefs if that's what you want and I have every right to point out that your beliefs are stupid. If you don't like it, well tough shit snowflake! Here's a thought, maybe you should get beliefs that aren't stupid? Also, invoking "Hitler" only shows just how stupid you really are... is that pathetic shit really the best you've got? 🤦♂️ You picked the wrong guy to troll...
0:35 is exactly the moment where we can see how stupid Shapiro's arguments really are. Firstly, no abortion ends up with killing of a baby, since baby, by definition, is human being after being born. Secondly, he says guns are not designed to kill children? Is there a mechanism in gun's design that prevent killing of a child?
@@goranmilic442 He just knows how to talk well and sort out his arguments and ideas but he doesn't have the time to properly have his arguments make sense before they come out of his mouth.
Today's debates boil down to this: CONSERVATIVE (real): "Logic, logic, reason, logic, data, facts, logic, problem or solution with policy, logic, data, facts." LIBERAL (real): "Emotion, emotion, sentiment, impracticality, impossible to implement, speech and thought policing, emotion, emotion, strip freedom, yelling, name calling, virtue signal."
Michael Dones I don’t mean to barge in but, both atheists and theists’ “facts and emotion” come from an opinionated view. They’re all just theories about what created the world. An explosion vs A life form in which we can’t comply with. So I think both theists and atheist should just be like: “Welp that’s your perspective”
@@OnlyCattoKnows except that more than 90% of scientists believe in an Atheist world point of view. In fact they have a lot of reasoning behind it. Your statement of points of view of perspective is only true with the political spectrum between Anarchists,Libertarians, all the different types of Capitalism(yes there are different types of Capitalism Google it), Socialism,Communism,Liberalism,Conservatism,Oligarchy,Plutocracies,etc. All those political and socioeconomic spectrums have legitimate arguments that cannot be proven but only speculate and the side that wins is often the one that argues the strongest.
LWC 1999 if you’re not very smart, such as this kid, it’s best to keep your mouth shut in such a big room, rather than reach for the microphone with a “gotcha” question. Ben answered him in plain English and the kid still had no idea what he was talking about.
@@fairwinds610 so you are in favor of allowing women who did use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy but the contraceptives failed to get an abortion? 🤔
Dude, please. Unlike most of these kids his position is actually well thought through and prepared. He is not coming up with most of these on the stop. He does that ahead of time. So primarily this isn't fast thinking but rather hard work and experience.
@@Stargazer3147 Dude, please indeed... Shapiro is a political hack who's main shtick is Q&A's with college kids who are not knowledgeable or experienced enough to call him out on his bullshit. Is that really so impressive to you? 🙄
Boot Bizarre “his bullshit?” If you know so much then how about calling him out on his bullshit instead of Anonymous name calling? Perhaps it is you that’s a hack.
I've watched quite a few over these clips of Ben Shapiro and 2 things absolutely stagger me. 1. How quickly Ben Shapiro comes back with a response he's had to a question he's just been given. 2. How worrying it is that the people who ask him these ridiculous questions are meant to be 'educated'
Damn that job paying you for holding the mic 🎤 hearing the back & forth,the correct & incorrect, and the corrections to the points made.... so cringy but not a dull time😆
You grew up to be a man, what right do you have to determine what occurs to the scientifically backed non human life in a woman's body? You probably have no issue with wars in several countries and might support them, and to adapt a quote from Ben Shapiro "there isn't a war that hasn't resulted in the death of a baby" so until you're truly against killing and violence of all forms, don't protest something that saves countless lives.
Guns can kill anybody. They are made for killing people, no magical force is stopping guns from killing a good person. And being able to legally own gun can protect you, sure, but it can also give a bad guy or mentally ill person easier and cheaper access to guns. Abortion is not killing babies, since baby, by definition, is human being after being born. Shapiro always makes couple of mistakes, but people rarely get them at first, you need to analyze what he said.
@@goranmilic442 no. Bad guys are criminals and intrinsically can only obtain guns illegally. When you outlaw guns, only outlaws have a guns. And by the way take a look at the drastic increase in life stabbings and those so-called perfect countries that have heavily regulated guns. Here’s the deal, the reality is if somebody wants to get you they will find a way. give me a piece of piano wire and I’ll show you.
@@johnmadsen37 Can a criminal (or future criminal) buy guns legally? Will it be easier and cheaper for him? I understand what you're saying, but people that commit unplanned crimes or mentally ill people have much more trouble to find suitable weapon without guns. Your point is valid only for criminals that plan to commit crimes in front.
Goran Milić no. You do not understand at all. First, most crimes are unplanned. Stop the Hollywood film watching and thinking that is real. There are no great heist planning sessions. Most robberies are ‘planned’ minutes ahead of time and that is just the rough schedule to show up and not the ‘what if’ scenarios. That is grossly stupid to think that takes place. Then, criminals by default , felons specifically can not own or have firearms near them. Then based on background checks, local gov, lesser criminals can not have. This is ALREADY the situation. This leaves ONLY the mentally ill fringe cases, statistical outliers, or the less than 1% of firearm related crimes. Unless you include violent criminals as mentally ill which is a very good argument. You are out of touch. You live in a fantasy land. You have never had a hardship and have no ability to understand the thinking of criminals and what they will not do go take something they want. Using statistical firing cases is not an argument. Gun regulations already exist. This will not affect gun crime as gun crime in heavily regulated states like California are just as high or higher. It is ignorant, and thinking you are right and have the answer just shows egos and a savior complex - and well, people are the last to be saving anything.
@@johnmadsen37 Well, yeah. With everything you said, which I mostly agree with, that was my point. Most crimes are unplanned. So chances are, if somebody wants to harm you in the spur of the moment, it would be unlikely that he will have gun at hand, if guns aren't allowed. If they are allowed, then you would need to be careful about any asshole that for some reason wants to harm you, because it's more probable he's armed if guns are allowed. Sure, in that case you would be armed too, but, just like you said, if somebody wants to get you, he will.
Controversial as he may be, Shaprio is putting his intelligence to tremendous use addressing the most pressing topics of our lifetime with consistent logic and reason. All the props in the world to him.
@@MartinLeong25 so your saying if the kid was an accident, and he lived his/her whole life knowing that they shouldn't have never existed? Okay I give props for being deep lol, but I disagree. What you just said is very spesific. I am 100% sure that there are kids and grown adults who knew this but just dont care weather they were an accident or not. Being a accident dose not justify abortion.
It's truly sad and embarrassing that people can have the same argument and yet sound confrontational because they have different experiential opinions.
Here's the difference Mr. Shapiro didn't elaborate enough on. Abortion opponents like Ben aren't trying to ban ultrasound machines, or scalpels, or any of the other tools or chemicals used in abortions. Just the act itself. They recognize that those tools can and often are used for good in the medical community. By comparison gun control advocates aren't trying to ban murder, or assault with a deadly weapon, or robbery as those ACTS are already crimes. They are trying to ban the tools used in SOME of those crimes. Recently firearm homicides have been in the neighborhood of 12,000 per year in the U.S. with at least 80% committed with handguns, not rifles or shotguns. The total number of violent crimes involving guns (which includes robberies where no one was harmed) has been consistently below 500,000 per year for over a decade (DOJ statistics). But the CDC reports that guns are used to PREVENT violent crimes an average of 3 million times per year. At worst a gun is six times more likely to prevent a crime as be used in one and the favorite target of gun control advocates (the AR-15 and/or "military style" rifles) represents at most a tiny fraction of the firearms used in violent crime meaning banning it won't have a big effect.
The US doesn't need gun control. They need gang control, which is where a majority of the gun violence comes from: gangs whose members obtain guns through illegal means or make homemade guns and go around shooting at anyone they think might be part of a rival gang.
@@Pranav-rp8wi No, we don't. We in the US like to try to keep our rights intact. If the rest of y'all want to give up your arms and let your government trample all over you, then you do you, but here in the US we prefer to have the ability to fight back. But I'm curious, why should assault rifles be banned any more than a handgun or a shotgun?
@@tenjou0 we also like to keep our rights intact... And what's with govt trampling over you? An assult rifle gives a person an ability to kill huge bunch of people that's why...handguns have an excuse for self defense..
Unrelated. I side with Shapiro but always split the bill with women. There's a large portion of women who use men for free nights out and I refuse to be that tool toward female entitlement. If you're young and use Instagram or tinder if you're single, you would be aware of the amount of girls who demand to be paid just to talk to them.
@@mahfeww I believe he meant a woman of values will naturally offer to split the bill. I'm a woman of values, would for sure split bills but would never go out with someone for something not meant to be serious. But if you're out just for sex and nothing of worth, accept that you'll be encountering shitty women. You use them, they use you. Nothing wrong with that.
@@fernandaabreu5625 Two wrongs dont make a right unless you're a sadist, most people never learn this because they want to either get back at someone or do not know themselves at all pass a certain point.
@@mahfeww maybe you should qualify your dates better and not be a douche nozzle. I don't split the bill and I don't put out but I only go out with men I'm actually interested in. You think so little of women but you are the problem... why don't you grow a pair
