Please help: what am I missing here? Piers versus Ben Shapiro

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

I've now had this video emailed to me 10 times. Evidently, it shows Shapiro winning the debate. What am I missing? The last question of the interview was devastating to Shapiro.

Help me. I live in reality and in a world of logic. I may be missing something here. I don't see how Piers "lost"--either in terms of debate or in, most especially, in terms of public opinion (again, Piers' last question was BRUTAL).

Thank you, DUers, especially those who may side with Shapiro ideologically.

I really am confused about how this could be a victory for gun advocates. This is a serious case of epistemic closure. I'll be honest, I couldn't really give a shit. I imagine we'll save some lives, etc., but mostly we'll just make ourselves feel like we're doing something. Great, whatever. I have 4 kids and no guns, because I've gambled a shitload and know when and when not the odds are against me. I always go with the odds. And I know that I'm derelict and lazy, so that means guns would be a clear and present danger in my house. Other than that, life is pretty absurd, and we can't stop death. yawn.

[southernyankeebelle]

1. Well all I can say to Piers is to stop trying to reason with stupid.

[brucefan]

2. And it was a good try!

that is a whole lotta stupid

[southernyankeebelle]

5. Your right.

[janlyn]

3. agreed no clear winner.

However being of jewish ancestry, I feel piers saying that he believes that the idea of a government becoming tyrannical is absurd is not only willfully ignorant of history but incredibly pompous.
I agree with the idea we don't need automatic weapons. But his comment pissed me off. It was not necessary and made him look as ignorant as those on the right.
I don't like to see anyone resort to bill O'Reilly fox news tactics.it totally destroys any chance to prove a good point.

[pacalo]

4. The points made by Piers Morgan won that debate, imo.

If buying a large amount of cold medicine is illegal, why aren't assault weapons illegal? Why do people need them?

The guy's answer to that question was "for the prospective possibility of resistance to tyranny."

Where would that tyranny come from?

"It could come from the United States because governments have gone tyrannical before."

Hmm. We are justified in owning assault weapons for the purpose of resisting eventual tyranny from the U.S. government -- the institution that creates our laws, while at the same time, tolerates this over-the-top zealotry & allows "future civilian combatants" to own assault weapons?

What kind of doofus would think this Shapiro guy won this argument?