While the discussion was civil, it didn't seem particularly productive. Michael Shermer: I'm going to dispel some myths He then proceeds to perpetuate several myths. Shermer: I'm science man. Facts matter. Huemer: The study doesn't say what you claim, and you made several other misrepresentations. Shermer: Well yeah... but narrative.
it think the fact that it wasn't very productive just speaks to the complexity of the issue, and is why i believe there is unfortunately no correct answer that will solve these issues
@@squatch545 So what exactly makes one a "gun nut"? A collector? A person who hunts a lot and maybe has more then one hunting rifle? Someone who believes that they should be able to protect themselves and their family by whatever means necessary? Maybe it is better to be a "gun nut" then a plain ordinary NUT, like you.
38:33 - I have to say something about what Shermer says here because it's so egregiously stupid and dishonest. Let's take the study he quotes at face value. It says, "Every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides." Shermer's comment on this then is, "In other words, a gun is 22 times more likely to be used by a good guy against another good guy than it is by a good guy against a bad guy." Again, let's accept his (highly dubious) numbers for the sake of argument. The 7 criminal assaults or homicides referred to are not instances of a good guy using a gun against another good guy; they are an instance of a *bad* guy using a gun against a good guy. The 11 suicides referred to are also not instances of a good guy using a gun on _another_ good guy; they are instances of a good guy using a gun on _himself._ So at best, his study appears to show that a gun is *4 times* more likely to be used by a good guy against another good guy than it is by a good guy against a bad guy, *not 22 times.* What this means is that Shermer can't even misquote studies properly.
It's a complete nonsense argument. It's like saying you're a billion times more likely to be in the space between galaxy clusters than within a galaxy.
1:22:33 Shermer says he didn't think bump stocks would ever be banned yet they are banned now. Just because you can't conceive a freedom will be taken away doesn't mean it can't.
36:20 When guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns 36:51 Licensing and registering cars does not mean that only outlaws will have cars I agree, Shermer. It's not a slippery slope argument. It's an equivocation fallacy that only took you 31 seconds to commit.
@michael guillory There really should be a named law, like Murphy's or Poe's, to express how often it is the case that questions starting with 'So' are rarely accurate. I think the right to self defense is fundamental to a free society.
I haven't watched the whole thing just yet. I'm still in the middle of Shermer's opening presentation, but his rhetoric is really ridiculous and over-the-top (arming people is "the worst idea anyone has very had," etc.). Compare this to Huemer's presentation, which was calm, sober and rational. The man was able to make his case systematically, without any wild rhetoric, and was able to resist the temptation to make sophomoric jabs at people who disagree with him. Even when he proposed what is to most people a counter-intuitive idea - that the government is like an accomplice to crime - Huemer explained his position clearly and gave reasons for it in an even-tempered way. To state my views up front: I agree with Huemer's position. But it's pretty clear that (at least, as of 32 minutes into this debate) Shermer is letting his emotional commitments on this issue get the better of him. That isn't necessarily a decisive consideration, but it does say a lot about who is likely to really have the better of the argument here.
Yes, because Hummer being an analytical philosopher makes him partial to formal logics and mathematics, silogisms and language games. What you perceived as "sober and rational". Traditionally analytic philosophers take little to no regard for history or real people’s plights in the real world. He’s also a libertarian. So, for him, you’re on your own. If you think that's why you're inserted as a social and rational animal in a society, to be on your own, then kudos to you. Better go live in the jungle all by yourself. Would be far more honest. And real.
@@anabee717 - Libertarianism does not mean that “you’re on your own” or that people should go live in the jungle. This is an extremely ignorant comment. That is not an opinion on my part. It is objectively true that you don’t know what you’re talking about here. Why do people insist on talking about things they don’t understand? Is showing just a little bit of curiosity really so much to ask? You can say what you want, but there is a certain kind of decorum that is appropriate for debates. You are making excuses to ignore the fact that Shermer failed to observe this decorum because you don’t like what Huemer has to say. Stop it. You’re acting like a child. These are not arguments.
@@IvanTheHeathen Right. And now you are being (blatantly) mansplanatory. Which is, I'm led to believe, the prerrogative of people such as yourself, who praise "decorum" first and foremost. You will also have to excuse my bad english, and perhaps you can write better and faster in portuguese or french or even spanish than me in english but, well, it's what it is. And you're right, I really believe we are past the tiresome analytic/continental philosophy debate, the all “rational, even-tempered” vs the “irrational, emotional commited”, as you put it. Life is not about having “the better of the argument”, which is something I can see you value very much. Life (in it’s wonder and complexity) is not complacent on thought experiments and deductive reasoning or other logical arguments with beautiful and on the point argumentation. We have to be consistent. Moral consistency is an imperative. So, I ask you bluntly: if you defend the right to bear arms (an individual right to look out for himself rather than expecting the state (or any other third part) to do it for him, then I must deduct you are also pro-choice, in case of a woman’s right to abortion. I really would very much like to hear you on that.
@@anabee717 -- Your English is not the problem here. Your manipulative tactics are. I am not the one who is worried about winning a screaming match. You are. I did not bother you with uncomprehending comments and emotional rhetoric to try and get a rise out of you. You are the one bothering me. You are the one who thinks that "winning" is important, and don't even try to suggest otherwise. If you weren't reacting emotionally to this, you wouldn't be bothering me. You wouldn't be making excuses for not having rational arguments. You wouldn't be giving irrelevant and vague lectures about "life" (which no one is even talking about in this context) in order to try to disguise the fact that you can't speak intelligently about the topic at hand. I didn't bother you. You bothered me. It's perfectly obvious who really cares about winning a "debate" here. I will reiterate what I said: You are acting like a child, and you should stop it. Everyone who comes across this thread will see that. I don't care if you think this is "mansplaining." That's not a rational argument. Now, as far as the abortion question goes, libertarians disagree on this. Some are pro-life; others are pro-choice; and still others hold a middle position called "evictionism," which states that a woman's desire to expel a baby from her womb is wrong only insofar as it happens to lead to the death of the baby. Since this is something that might be resolved by advancing technology (we can imagine having incubators one day that might be able sustain and allow for the development of even a zygote), evictionists don't think that abortion is immoral per se but usually advise against it for the time being. No position on abortion directly follows from the basic principles of libertarianism. That's why libertarians disagree with one another on it. Libertarianism doesn't mean that you can just do whatever you want, so having some particular position on abortion while being a libertarian is not an issue of "moral consistency." You're simply wrong to frame things this way. The problem is that you just don't understand what libertarianism is. Personally, I'm on the pro-life side, but that has nothing to do with my being a libertarian. My view on this stems from metaphysical commitments I have about the nature of the soul, what a person is, and so on. That's a completely separate topic.
@@IvanTheHeathen Now you're just turning around arguments. All the adjectivation, concerning my objections to your comment on the video, are yours. That doesn't make it true though. It's a cognitive bias and it rather unveils you: "This is an extremely ignorant comment?"!!! Please. Who exactly is acting like a child? And that brings me to my point: "The rational argument". I could rant about the term "eviction" = removal from the property, applied to the abortion issue. Which, as you're guessing, makes me cringe. But theoretical framework on discussing abortion as if we're talking about evicting a tenant is something completely clueless. And, there we go, unrealist. Instead, going back to your first comment: since you identify as a libertarian and we know libertarianism is predicated upon the sanctity of private property rights AND the non-aggression principle HOW exactly do you justify owning a gun?! Who exactly is a libertarian trying to non-agress by owning a gun? ‘Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun"? Really? I mean, REALLY? Because you know there are others ways to check on governments without using guns, right? And back to the beginning - HOW on earth the laissez-faire capitalism of libertarians cannot be viewed as a "you're on your own" approach, an individualistic take on life? And, again, outside your parents basement it is still a social, participative, society we're living in. The non-aggression principle, free market principle and sel interest of people would only work 100% on fully rational beings. And humans have NEVER been fully rational. You DO must broaden your understanding of the human nature.
Huemer's "state as accomplice to crime" examples and arguments are wonderful. I wish Shermer had addressed them. "Your moral responsibility is not to fix every problem in the world, it's first of all to make sure that you yourself do not violate other people's rights." I'm delighted to hear Huemer apply that "first do no harm" principle to government. The only thing I'd change is to add "and your agents and your government" after "you yourself". "It's hard to get criminals to follow laws." ;0) But I'm disappointed that Huemer followed, without objection, as the later discussion wandered (just as government often does) into the weeds of preventing accidents or suicides. This risks becoming a virtue-signaling #nudge orgy. "Oh! Isn't it wonderful that we smart people imagine ways we can arrange others' lives so that they'll never need to THINK!!! What a gift to the world WE are! We can be society's brain and we'll assign the proles to be it's body!!!" I'm sorry that showoffs accidentally shoot themselves in RUclips videos, and that folks of negative mental state sometimes shoot themselves. But there is no right to an accident-free life. Those who imagine government can heroically try to arrange for EVEN ONE such life without wasting huge amounts of resources is living in a busybody #nudge fantasy. In my view, government's mandate to defend individual rights does not extend to defending individuals from their own mistakes. Taken seriously, this would mean for instance that government should prevent someone from blowing their rent money on a weekend trip, or risking and possibly losing a large sum investing in a business venture, or from storing their life savings in their mattress rather than in a bank. Presumably the heroic motivation would be to prevent a prole from being evicted, jeopardizing their financial health, compromising their ability to feed and house their children, or risk losing all of their money during a break-in. This is not to say that Darwin Awards are not richly deserved by showoffs and suicides. Nor is it to say that eviction notices should not be served by the sheriff, or that folks should not be held responsible for feeding and housing their children. It IS to say that prevention is an ENDLESS job, with ENDLESS suspects, subjected to ENDLESS intrusions, and ENDLESS costs, funded with ENDLESS taxes, trusting pols with ENDLESS power, and makes EVERYONE a suspect.
Really good debate. I feel like Shermer was almost willing to concede to Huemer in the rebuttal segment on a number of key points... Which is seldom seen in a public debate! So I think he deserves some kudos on that. Generally I think Huemer made a stronger case. Though as someone who remains conflicted on this issue, I can identify with Shermer's exasperation more than I can Huemer's (apparent) detachment regarding America's gun-death rate. I realise that's irrelevant to the substance of the argument.
Yes, because Hummer being an analytical philosopher makes him partial to formal logics and mathematics, silogisms and language games. What you perceived as "detachment". Traditionally analytic philosophers take little to no regard for history or real people’s plights in the real world. He’s also a libertarian. So, for him, you’re on your own. If men of thought defend that, although you're inserted, as a social and rational animal, in a society, ultimately you are on your own, then kudos to them. But it would be better (and by far more honest) to go live in the jungle all by themselves. I don't see Huemer willingly doing that.
I am shocked how much Shermer got wrong in only the first 10 min of his presentation. Factually wrong. ANd his argument seemed to be "we already violate the 2a, so we should violate it more"
I’m never too impressed with the argument that, due to superior weaponry, rebellion against the government is futile (one of Shermer’s arguments). The cities and the people are the wealth of the nation, so there will always be some limit to the amount of force the ruling class will want to use. There’s no pleasure being the king over a heap of ashes and corpses. Nukes, tanks, missles, bombs - these are weapons a government uses against another government; they would not be the weapons used much against a country’s own citizenry as they are too destructive. So it would come down to a man on man fight, and the government’s soldiers - even assuming no defectors - would be vastly outnumbered.
Good point, but history speaks otherwise, populism can wipe out anything that's why 100 million people were killed by their own government in 20th century.
Shermer mentions that people with guns don't avoid other people that own guns, but talks about criminal on criminal crime. This is irrelevant. I don't think anybody is arguing that we have gun laws to protect EVERYONE from gun violence. Would that be awesome? Hell yeah, but we are mostly talking about innocent people. To talk a little further about that, it's very difficult to quantify the amount of crimes that have been avoided given the presence of another weapon available to the other person. We often mention about how just having more police presence deters crime. I do agree with Shermer that we should have funding to research more gun control policies, but I think we might find some surprising evidence that a presence of a weapon deters crime. I do actually agree that a guy who is going to shoot a bad guy (ie the good guy with a gun defeats a bad guy with a gun) is not likely. But if we overlook the narrow sense of that phrase to include meaning that the presence of a weapon will beat the bad guy with a gun, that phrase probably has some really serious and truth behind it. I also believe that Shermer is right that if we make guns more difficult to get, it will deter crime, but highly doubtful that it's as much as he thinks. Many of the people that he mention would more than likely receive the guns they want regardless. It would just make it slightly more inconvenient to them to get, which is fine IF that's all that it was doing, but there are people that want to have those guns that AREN'T going to use it for violence. It would prevent spontaneous kills perhaps, but... there are waiting periods that probably do a decent job, too. I don't hate Shermer's arguments, but I also think included in the data is things that are really irrelevant to what we are looking to examine. Things like suicide are incredibly important. and really, just mental health issues are so incredibly important overall, but it's not generally what the debate is about. It's not that we are debating gun control laws after hearing about suicides, it's generally after some kind of shooting. I have to side, as usual, with Huemer here. Shermer's points are good with an asterisk beside it. A lot of what he says is technically true, but not relevant to how we generally talk about the gun control laws.
Well now I don't know if I'd go that far. I'd say it's everyone's responsibility. If it was all on me I don't think you could then fault the criminal. Like not locking your door and blaming the car owner for the theft ... It should not be my burden to keep others honest ... That i have to is the real crime. I'm willing to do it, but I have enough to deal with on my own without having to constantly guard myself from my neighbors too.
Shermer makes an analogy with bank laws toward the 58:30 minute mark. This is a misleading analogy, because whereas when a law-abiding citizen can own a gun, this can protect them from a criminal who owns a gun. But, when a law-abiding citizen can commit bank fraud legally, this has no comparable protective effect against criminals who commit bank fraud. In other words, there is an asymmetry between gun laws and other laws, whereas Shermer is incorrectly claiming they are equivalent.
Where was the suggestion to reduce government access to firearms? Considering the legions of unarmed black men executed by the police, there's no reason to think getting a government paycheck makes one more trustworthy to hold a firearm.
Government restrict themselves?! Ha. Don't hold your breath. Maybe you see then why private citizens want to preserve their ability to have them? Mutually assured destruction.
Anti-firearm folks in the United States often misrepresent the firearms laws of other nations. Shermer mentioned that he had slides on Australia that showed their firearm confiscation after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 reduced gun violence. The problem with that myth is that gun violence was already declining at the same rate before and after the confiscation and non-gun violent crime decreased over the same period, which shows a lack of a causal link between the data and Shermer's preferred policy. One thing Shermer said is correct: The data can be skewed to appear to support any position. What was unsaid was those on his side engage in that far too often.
Barely a minute into Shermer's presentation, and the alarm bells have gone off several times: painting himself as an independent "scientist" and framing others as cuckoos with the usual left/right cliches, attempting to forge sympathy for himself by dispersing anecdotes about his daughter and his own childhood, and using inappropriate humor and artificial laughter.
Both of these professors are not even criminal justice majors. The actual empirical evidence suggest that 2/3 of all gun related deaths are suicides, roughly 85-90% of all gun deaths are from hand guns, 3-5% are mass murder gun murders from assault weapons, the US is ranked as high as 12th international per 100,000 people in gun deaths and ranked #1 in gun related deaths in terms of industrialized countries. Professor Donahue from Stanford essentially cites that the more guns in a country, the more suicides by guns, gun related homicides, gun related accidental shooting, etc.
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” This is true. A bad guy with a gun isn’t going to be stopped until he’s confronted by someone with a gun, usually someone wearing a uniform and a badge, but not always.
@@imperfectious Just find it ironic that cop hating liberals that decry police shootings and try to paint police as corrupt want also that the masses be disarmed against them. You seem to be trying to cast a shadow on our men in uniform.
Haha my God. His terrorism deaths vs gun deaths was so illogical. There is no benefit to terrorism so ofcourse we should attempt to stop it, but there is a benefit to owning a gun - it's a pro/con analysis. This is mostly why I am pro-gun and on the political Right. I try to find opinions which counter mine so as to learn from the opposite side, and almost constantly I am met with stupidity from the political Left, or in the case of gun control, stupidity from the anti-gun crowd.
Mike Huemer brilliantly used rhetoric to avoid the matter being debated by implying at least a handful of times that the government is an accomplice. It does not matter how the government is an accomplice, it does not matter that being an accomplice requires Mens Rea, it does not matter that the crime of collusion has a very specific legal definition and fits in the penal code in a very specific way. No, you just have to slip the idea that the government is bad, and therefore anything the government does is evil. In reality, almost every government in the world is an effective deterrent to the crime that Huemer says that government is an accomplice to. The governments that strictly prohibit almost every kind of gun ownership, the governments that give generous gun rights, even stupid governments like the US government, all have a police force and a judicial system that prevent more crimes than those that are stopped by a civilian with a gun. In fact, the stability and prosperity that most governments provide are the reason why crime is at acceptable levels, more than what the police and judges can provide.
Most countries don’t have the gun culture of the US. You just didn’t understand his argument. One can be an accomplice without being aware of it, just like some can do horrible things without intending it.
@@marco_mate5181 Complicity, by its very definition, means consciously participating in the bad action, and in legal terms, consciously participating in a crime. You can do bad things without consciousness, but that is not complicity. Invest a bit of money in a dictionary, please, or at least a bit of time in reading from it.
@@andresvillarreal9271 invest some time in philosophy and you might learn to avoid missing the point of an argument. The kind of complicity that is relevant isn’t the conscious one. The fact that we are helping someone doing something bad while thinking we are doing something good doesn’t change the fact that we are doing something bad. That is the point. Your previous intentions are irrelevant ones you become aware of the real consequences of your actions. So the government is still helping criminals if the laws unintentionally help criminals.
@@marco_mate5181 You might be able to slip the "unconscious complicity" idea into the casual conversations, but in philosophy, people don't just blurt words like you want to do.
Hmm well the constitution, doesn't say anything about phones and ect. So i guess we can get rid of them including the internet. If you can see the ridiculousness of what i said then you will see the ridiculousness of what you said and also you forgot the most important of the second amendment "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" it does not state "the right of the militia" also it doesn't specify what arms you can keep and bear just like the first doesnt specify.
Michael really wiped the floor with Michael.
I disagree. Although I thought Michael's presentation was not without merit, it was really Michael's presentation that won the day.
While the discussion was civil, it didn't seem particularly productive.
Michael Shermer: I'm going to dispel some myths
He then proceeds to perpetuate several myths.
Shermer: I'm science man. Facts matter.
Huemer: The study doesn't say what you claim, and you made several other misrepresentations.
Shermer: Well yeah... but narrative.
it think the fact that it wasn't very productive just speaks to the complexity of the issue, and is why i believe there is unfortunately no correct answer that will solve these issues
Huemer seemed civil. Shermer took many pot shots at conservatives and gun "wignuts".
@@kdo2300 'Wingnuts' is a civil term compared to what gun nuts should be called.
@@squatch545 So what exactly makes one a "gun nut"? A collector? A person who hunts a lot and maybe has more then one hunting rifle? Someone who believes that they should be able to protect themselves and their family by whatever means necessary? Maybe it is better to be a "gun nut" then a plain ordinary NUT, like you.
38:33 - I have to say something about what Shermer says here because it's so egregiously stupid and dishonest. Let's take the study he quotes at face value. It says, "Every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides." Shermer's comment on this then is, "In other words, a gun is 22 times more likely to be used by a good guy against another good guy than it is by a good guy against a bad guy." Again, let's accept his (highly dubious) numbers for the sake of argument. The 7 criminal assaults or homicides referred to are not instances of a good guy using a gun against another good guy; they are an instance of a *bad* guy using a gun against a good guy. The 11 suicides referred to are also not instances of a good guy using a gun on _another_ good guy; they are instances of a good guy using a gun on _himself._ So at best, his study appears to show that a gun is *4 times* more likely to be used by a good guy against another good guy than it is by a good guy against a bad guy, *not 22 times.* What this means is that Shermer can't even misquote studies properly.
He seems to be incapable of processing real statistics.
It's a complete nonsense argument.
It's like saying you're a billion times more likely to be in the space between galaxy clusters than within a galaxy.
1:22:33 Shermer says he didn't think bump stocks would ever be banned yet they are banned now. Just because you can't conceive a freedom will be taken away doesn't mean it can't.
Bro Michael Huemer looks like Keanu Reeves’s philo giga chad brother
Well said lol!
Very disappointed. This guy is not even in the same universe as Hummer intellectually.
4:48 to skip the moderator's dribble
36:20 When guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns
36:51 Licensing and registering cars does not mean that only outlaws will have cars
I agree, Shermer. It's not a slippery slope argument. It's an equivocation fallacy that only took you 31 seconds to commit.
Yes, difference between banning and registration.
@michael guillory There really should be a named law, like Murphy's or Poe's, to express how often it is the case that questions starting with 'So' are rarely accurate.
I think the right to self defense is fundamental to a free society.
I haven't watched the whole thing just yet. I'm still in the middle of Shermer's opening presentation, but his rhetoric is really ridiculous and over-the-top (arming people is "the worst idea anyone has very had," etc.). Compare this to Huemer's presentation, which was calm, sober and rational. The man was able to make his case systematically, without any wild rhetoric, and was able to resist the temptation to make sophomoric jabs at people who disagree with him. Even when he proposed what is to most people a counter-intuitive idea - that the government is like an accomplice to crime - Huemer explained his position clearly and gave reasons for it in an even-tempered way. To state my views up front: I agree with Huemer's position. But it's pretty clear that (at least, as of 32 minutes into this debate) Shermer is letting his emotional commitments on this issue get the better of him. That isn't necessarily a decisive consideration, but it does say a lot about who is likely to really have the better of the argument here.
Yes, because Hummer being an analytical philosopher makes him partial to formal logics and mathematics, silogisms and language games. What you perceived as "sober and rational". Traditionally analytic philosophers take little to no regard for history or real people’s plights in the real world. He’s also a libertarian. So, for him, you’re on your own. If you think that's why you're inserted as a social and rational animal in a society, to be on your own, then kudos to you. Better go live in the jungle all by yourself. Would be far more honest. And real.
@@anabee717 - Libertarianism does not mean that “you’re on your own” or that people should go live in the jungle. This is an extremely ignorant comment. That is not an opinion on my part. It is objectively true that you don’t know what you’re talking about here. Why do people insist on talking about things they don’t understand? Is showing just a little bit of curiosity really so much to ask?
You can say what you want, but there is a certain kind of decorum that is appropriate for debates. You are making excuses to ignore the fact that Shermer failed to observe this decorum because you don’t like what Huemer has to say. Stop it. You’re acting like a child. These are not arguments.
@@IvanTheHeathen Right. And now you are being (blatantly) mansplanatory. Which is, I'm led to believe, the prerrogative of people such as yourself, who praise "decorum" first and foremost. You will also have to excuse my bad english, and perhaps you can write better and faster in portuguese or french or even spanish than me in english but, well, it's what it is. And you're right, I really believe we are past the tiresome analytic/continental philosophy debate, the all “rational, even-tempered” vs the “irrational, emotional commited”, as you put it. Life is not about having “the better of the argument”, which is something I can see you value very much. Life (in it’s wonder and complexity) is not complacent on thought experiments and deductive reasoning or other logical arguments with beautiful and on the point argumentation. We have to be consistent. Moral consistency is an imperative. So, I ask you bluntly: if you defend the right to bear arms (an individual right to look out for himself rather than expecting the state (or any other third part) to do it for him, then I must deduct you are also pro-choice, in case of a woman’s right to abortion. I really would very much like to hear you on that.
@@anabee717 -- Your English is not the problem here. Your manipulative tactics are. I am not the one who is worried about winning a screaming match. You are. I did not bother you with uncomprehending comments and emotional rhetoric to try and get a rise out of you. You are the one bothering me. You are the one who thinks that "winning" is important, and don't even try to suggest otherwise.
If you weren't reacting emotionally to this, you wouldn't be bothering me. You wouldn't be making excuses for not having rational arguments. You wouldn't be giving irrelevant and vague lectures about "life" (which no one is even talking about in this context) in order to try to disguise the fact that you can't speak intelligently about the topic at hand. I didn't bother you. You bothered me. It's perfectly obvious who really cares about winning a "debate" here.
I will reiterate what I said: You are acting like a child, and you should stop it. Everyone who comes across this thread will see that. I don't care if you think this is "mansplaining." That's not a rational argument.
Now, as far as the abortion question goes, libertarians disagree on this. Some are pro-life; others are pro-choice; and still others hold a middle position called "evictionism," which states that a woman's desire to expel a baby from her womb is wrong only insofar as it happens to lead to the death of the baby. Since this is something that might be resolved by advancing technology (we can imagine having incubators one day that might be able sustain and allow for the development of even a zygote), evictionists don't think that abortion is immoral per se but usually advise against it for the time being.
No position on abortion directly follows from the basic principles of libertarianism. That's why libertarians disagree with one another on it. Libertarianism doesn't mean that you can just do whatever you want, so having some particular position on abortion while being a libertarian is not an issue of "moral consistency." You're simply wrong to frame things this way. The problem is that you just don't understand what libertarianism is.
Personally, I'm on the pro-life side, but that has nothing to do with my being a libertarian. My view on this stems from metaphysical commitments I have about the nature of the soul, what a person is, and so on. That's a completely separate topic.
@@IvanTheHeathen Now you're just turning around arguments.
All the adjectivation, concerning my objections to your comment on the video, are yours. That doesn't make it true though. It's a cognitive bias and it rather unveils you: "This is an extremely ignorant comment?"!!! Please. Who exactly is acting like a child?
And that brings me to my point: "The rational argument". I could rant about the term "eviction" = removal from the property, applied to the abortion issue. Which, as you're guessing, makes me cringe. But theoretical framework on discussing abortion as if we're talking about evicting a tenant is something completely clueless. And, there we go, unrealist.
Instead, going back to your first comment: since you identify as a libertarian and we know libertarianism is predicated upon the sanctity of private property rights AND the non-aggression principle HOW exactly do you justify owning a gun?!
Who exactly is a libertarian trying to non-agress by owning a gun? ‘Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun"? Really? I mean, REALLY? Because you know there are others ways to check on governments without using guns, right?
And back to the beginning - HOW on earth the laissez-faire capitalism of libertarians cannot be viewed as a "you're on your own" approach, an individualistic take on life? And, again, outside your parents basement it is still a social, participative, society we're living in.
The non-aggression principle, free market principle and sel interest of people would only work 100% on fully rational beings. And humans have NEVER been fully rational.
You DO must broaden your understanding of the human nature.
If only politicians debated like this😊
Huemer's "state as accomplice to crime" examples and arguments are wonderful. I wish Shermer had addressed them.
"Your moral responsibility is not to fix every problem in the world, it's first of all to make sure that you yourself do not violate other people's rights." I'm delighted to hear Huemer apply that "first do no harm" principle to government. The only thing I'd change is to add "and your agents and your government" after "you yourself".
"It's hard to get criminals to follow laws." ;0)
But I'm disappointed that Huemer followed, without objection, as the later discussion wandered (just as government often does) into the weeds of preventing accidents or suicides. This risks becoming a virtue-signaling #nudge orgy. "Oh! Isn't it wonderful that we smart people imagine ways we can arrange others' lives so that they'll never need to THINK!!! What a gift to the world WE are! We can be society's brain and we'll assign the proles to be it's body!!!"
I'm sorry that showoffs accidentally shoot themselves in RUclips videos, and that folks of negative mental state sometimes shoot themselves. But there is no right to an accident-free life. Those who imagine government can heroically try to arrange for EVEN ONE such life without wasting huge amounts of resources is living in a busybody #nudge fantasy. In my view, government's mandate to defend individual rights does not extend to defending individuals from their own mistakes. Taken seriously, this would mean for instance that government should prevent someone from blowing their rent money on a weekend trip, or risking and possibly losing a large sum investing in a business venture, or from storing their life savings in their mattress rather than in a bank. Presumably the heroic motivation would be to prevent a prole from being evicted, jeopardizing their financial health, compromising their ability to feed and house their children, or risk losing all of their money during a break-in.
This is not to say that Darwin Awards are not richly deserved by showoffs and suicides. Nor is it to say that eviction notices should not be served by the sheriff, or that folks should not be held responsible for feeding and housing their children. It IS to say that prevention is an ENDLESS job, with ENDLESS suspects, subjected to ENDLESS intrusions, and ENDLESS costs, funded with ENDLESS taxes, trusting pols with ENDLESS power, and makes EVERYONE a suspect.
Really good debate. I feel like Shermer was almost willing to concede to Huemer in the rebuttal segment on a number of key points... Which is seldom seen in a public debate! So I think he deserves some kudos on that. Generally I think Huemer made a stronger case. Though as someone who remains conflicted on this issue, I can identify with Shermer's exasperation more than I can Huemer's (apparent) detachment regarding America's gun-death rate. I realise that's irrelevant to the substance of the argument.
Yes, because Hummer being an analytical philosopher makes him partial to formal logics and mathematics, silogisms and language games. What you perceived as "detachment". Traditionally analytic philosophers take little to no regard for history or real people’s plights in the real world. He’s also a libertarian. So, for him, you’re on your own. If men of thought defend that, although you're inserted, as a social and rational animal, in a society, ultimately you are on your own, then kudos to them. But it would be better (and by far more honest) to go live in the jungle all by themselves. I don't see Huemer willingly doing that.
Why do people keep saying in these debates you can’t own a tank? Since when?
I am shocked how much Shermer got wrong in only the first 10 min of his presentation. Factually wrong. ANd his argument seemed to be "we already violate the 2a, so we should violate it more"
I’m never too impressed with the argument that, due to superior weaponry, rebellion against the government is futile (one of Shermer’s arguments). The cities and the people are the wealth of the nation, so there will always be some limit to the amount of force the ruling class will want to use. There’s no pleasure being the king over a heap of ashes and corpses. Nukes, tanks, missles, bombs - these are weapons a government uses against another government; they would not be the weapons used much against a country’s own citizenry as they are too destructive. So it would come down to a man on man fight, and the government’s soldiers - even assuming no defectors - would be vastly outnumbered.
Good point, but history speaks otherwise, populism can wipe out anything that's why 100 million people were killed by their own government in 20th century.
Michael Shermer: Hello. I would like to give my arguments in favor of gun control. Politics. Religion. Abortion. Take me seriously. Thank you.
Shermer mentions that people with guns don't avoid other people that own guns, but talks about criminal on criminal crime. This is irrelevant. I don't think anybody is arguing that we have gun laws to protect EVERYONE from gun violence. Would that be awesome? Hell yeah, but we are mostly talking about innocent people. To talk a little further about that, it's very difficult to quantify the amount of crimes that have been avoided given the presence of another weapon available to the other person. We often mention about how just having more police presence deters crime. I do agree with Shermer that we should have funding to research more gun control policies, but I think we might find some surprising evidence that a presence of a weapon deters crime. I do actually agree that a guy who is going to shoot a bad guy (ie the good guy with a gun defeats a bad guy with a gun) is not likely. But if we overlook the narrow sense of that phrase to include meaning that the presence of a weapon will beat the bad guy with a gun, that phrase probably has some really serious and truth behind it.
I also believe that Shermer is right that if we make guns more difficult to get, it will deter crime, but highly doubtful that it's as much as he thinks. Many of the people that he mention would more than likely receive the guns they want regardless. It would just make it slightly more inconvenient to them to get, which is fine IF that's all that it was doing, but there are people that want to have those guns that AREN'T going to use it for violence. It would prevent spontaneous kills perhaps, but... there are waiting periods that probably do a decent job, too.
I don't hate Shermer's arguments, but I also think included in the data is things that are really irrelevant to what we are looking to examine. Things like suicide are incredibly important. and really, just mental health issues are so incredibly important overall, but it's not generally what the debate is about. It's not that we are debating gun control laws after hearing about suicides, it's generally after some kind of shooting.
I have to side, as usual, with Huemer here. Shermer's points are good with an asterisk beside it. A lot of what he says is technically true, but not relevant to how we generally talk about the gun control laws.
Shall not be infringed. Carry a gun always. Security is YOUR responsibility!
Well now I don't know if I'd go that far. I'd say it's everyone's responsibility. If it was all on me I don't think you could then fault the criminal.
Like not locking your door and blaming the car owner for the theft ... It should not be my burden to keep others honest ... That i have to is the real crime. I'm willing to do it, but I have enough to deal with on my own without having to constantly guard myself from my neighbors too.
I like Shermer, but he makes a serious error in conflating supporting gun rights with supporting big brother laws or abortion.
That anti-gun dude is anti-intellectual. He strawmans every other sentence and never answers questions directly
Shermer makes an analogy with bank laws toward the 58:30 minute mark. This is a misleading analogy, because whereas when a law-abiding citizen can own a gun, this can protect them from a criminal who owns a gun. But, when a law-abiding citizen can commit bank fraud legally, this has no comparable protective effect against criminals who commit bank fraud. In other words, there is an asymmetry between gun laws and other laws, whereas Shermer is incorrectly claiming they are equivalent.
Exactly. No one commits bank fraud in self defense. Shermer's analogy fails on that basis alone.
Where was the suggestion to reduce government access to firearms? Considering the legions of unarmed black men executed by the police, there's no reason to think getting a government paycheck makes one more trustworthy to hold a firearm.
Government restrict themselves?! Ha. Don't hold your breath. Maybe you see then why private citizens want to preserve their ability to have them? Mutually assured destruction.
I see no evidence that black people are killed more often unnecessarily.
Germany you can take your firearms home. Watch Joerg Spraves video on this.
Anti-firearm folks in the United States often misrepresent the firearms laws of other nations. Shermer mentioned that he had slides on Australia that showed their firearm confiscation after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 reduced gun violence. The problem with that myth is that gun violence was already declining at the same rate before and after the confiscation and non-gun violent crime decreased over the same period, which shows a lack of a causal link between the data and Shermer's preferred policy. One thing Shermer said is correct: The data can be skewed to appear to support any position. What was unsaid was those on his side engage in that far too often.
Barely a minute into Shermer's presentation, and the alarm bells have gone off several times: painting himself as an independent "scientist" and framing others as cuckoos with the usual left/right cliches, attempting to forge sympathy for himself by dispersing anecdotes about his daughter and his own childhood, and using inappropriate humor and artificial laughter.
No, the answer is always no.
Both of these professors are not even criminal justice majors. The actual empirical evidence suggest that 2/3 of all gun related deaths are suicides, roughly 85-90% of all gun deaths are from hand guns, 3-5% are mass murder gun murders from assault weapons, the US is ranked as high as 12th international per 100,000 people in gun deaths and ranked #1 in gun related deaths in terms of industrialized countries. Professor Donahue from Stanford essentially cites that the more guns in a country, the more suicides by guns, gun related homicides, gun related accidental shooting, etc.
I think we need people who know stuffs, Michael Shermer arguments very weak and It's easier to debunk Assault Weapon issue.
👍🏻
Does America Need Stricter Gun Control Laws? NO! All guns laws are infringements!.
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”
This is true. A bad guy with a gun isn’t going to be stopped until he’s confronted by someone with a gun, usually someone wearing a uniform and a badge, but not always.
Someone in uniform is usually a bad guy.
Your assumption that a uniform and a badge qualify one as a good guy is at best unfounded.
@@imperfectious And so ... These same bad people in uniform should be the only ones with the guns?
@@robm6510 No. What part of my post led you to that absurd conclusion?
@@imperfectious Just find it ironic that cop hating liberals that decry police shootings and try to paint police as corrupt want also that the masses be disarmed against them. You seem to be trying to cast a shadow on our men in uniform.
Haha my God. His terrorism deaths vs gun deaths was so illogical. There is no benefit to terrorism so ofcourse we should attempt to stop it, but there is a benefit to owning a gun - it's a pro/con analysis.
This is mostly why I am pro-gun and on the political Right. I try to find opinions which counter mine so as to learn from the opposite side, and almost constantly I am met with stupidity from the political Left, or in the case of gun control, stupidity from the anti-gun crowd.
Why can’t civilians buy nukes?
Do you realistically need a nuke to defend yourself?
Cost and rarity of materials.
Mike Huemer brilliantly used rhetoric to avoid the matter being debated by implying at least a handful of times that the government is an accomplice. It does not matter how the government is an accomplice, it does not matter that being an accomplice requires Mens Rea, it does not matter that the crime of collusion has a very specific legal definition and fits in the penal code in a very specific way. No, you just have to slip the idea that the government is bad, and therefore anything the government does is evil.
In reality, almost every government in the world is an effective deterrent to the crime that Huemer says that government is an accomplice to. The governments that strictly prohibit almost every kind of gun ownership, the governments that give generous gun rights, even stupid governments like the US government, all have a police force and a judicial system that prevent more crimes than those that are stopped by a civilian with a gun. In fact, the stability and prosperity that most governments provide are the reason why crime is at acceptable levels, more than what the police and judges can provide.
Most countries don’t have the gun culture of the US. You just didn’t understand his argument. One can be an accomplice without being aware of it, just like some can do horrible things without intending it.
@@marco_mate5181 Complicity, by its very definition, means consciously participating in the bad action, and in legal terms, consciously participating in a crime. You can do bad things without consciousness, but that is not complicity. Invest a bit of money in a dictionary, please, or at least a bit of time in reading from it.
@@andresvillarreal9271 invest some time in philosophy and you might learn to avoid missing the point of an argument. The kind of complicity that is relevant isn’t the conscious one. The fact that we are helping someone doing something bad while thinking we are doing something good doesn’t change the fact that we are doing something bad. That is the point. Your previous intentions are irrelevant ones you become aware of the real consequences of your actions. So the government is still helping criminals if the laws unintentionally help criminals.
@@andresvillarreal9271 none of the definition I’ve found mention being conscious of the activity or intending to do bad.
@@marco_mate5181 You might be able to slip the "unconscious complicity" idea into the casual conversations, but in philosophy, people don't just blurt words like you want to do.
The argument Huemer gives at the beginning might be the worst argument in the history of philosophy, not bad.
You've had an encounter with the debate police: ruclips.net/video/d06eAWtT8E8/видео.html
1:19:30 "Just arm everybody. To hell with the law. Just shoot it out."
Your terms are acceptable.
🏴🏴🏴
A well armed militia? OK, first join the Amy Reserves, then be issued with a flintlock appropriate to the date of the constitutional amendment...
Hmm well the constitution, doesn't say anything about phones and ect. So i guess we can get rid of them including the internet. If you can see the ridiculousness of what i said then you will see the ridiculousness of what you said and also you forgot the most important of the second amendment "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" it does not state "the right of the militia" also it doesn't specify what arms you can keep and bear just like the first doesnt specify.
Right. Issue flintlocks to our military too. Don't forget about the rest of our Constitution while you're at it.
That would make you part of a 'poorly' armed militia though ... comparatively speaking when considering the forces they are up against.
The logic is so bad from both sides.
Is it?
Please explain.