In a scathing YouTube video, Ben Shapiro complains that late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel questioned the motives of those who would not agree with him about the issue of gun control after the Las Vegas shooting. The Ben Shapiro video is called “Ben Shapiro Reveals The Lies In Jimmy Kimmel’s Las Vegas Shooting Monologue.”
HYPOCRISY RIGHT AT THE START
Throughout the long video, Ben Shapiro complains about attributing bad motives to people. Yet, right there in the title, Ben Shapiro already attributes bad motives to Jimmy Kimmel. It’s in the word “lies” which means “false statements made with deliberate intent to deceive; intentional untruth.” That was quick.
Ben Shapiro sets out his premise in a long rant:
Jimmy Kimmel finally goes off last night, and Jimmy Kimmel again has become sort of the all-heart representative of leftist causes… Last night he did a long shtick about gun control that was entirely based on emotion, and it was really nasty… because he is suggesting that you and I don’t care. It doesn’t matter that you lost sleep last night and I lost sleep last night because of what happened… We don’t agree with Jimmy Kimmel’s evidence list suggestions about gun control. That means that we don’t care. We’re bad people. You wanna know why the country is not unified? It’s because of stuff like this. It’s not because we disagree on policy — we’ve been disagreeing on policy forever. It’s because there’s certain people to impute bad motives to people who disagree…
But what’s gonna be nasty is when he swivels this [emotion about the shooting], and then he uses it as a club to beat his political opponents on gun control …
BEN SHAPIRO SWIVELS HIS NASTY CLUB
Let’s see just how much “swiveling” of his “club” Ben Shapiro does. He asks:
What exactly would stop something like this …
Here are some ideas Ben Shapiro fails to notice. The extent of the Las Vegas massacre could have been reduced or prevented a number of ways. “Bump stocks” that make rifles more automatic could stop circulating, hotels could x-ray baggage the way airports do, or weapons could be registered like vehicles, as examples. Ben Shapiro does not even suggest any of these possible answers.
Short of full gun confiscation …
It would not take “full gun confiscation” to reduce the number of guns murders. Ben Shapiro sets up a false dichotomy. Either gun murder must “stop” or it will continue exactly as it is — at the official recorded rate of at least 11,008 homicides and 21,386 suicides per year. In reality, we can make changes to reduce these numbers and save lives.
IDEOLOGICAL EXTREMISM VERSUS ANYTHING ELSE
Short of full gun confiscation which is really what the left wants … which no one on the left will admit they want but they actually do want …
Ben Shapiro sees no middle ground.You are either with Ben Shapiro and you oppose all regulations or you are part of “the left” that wants to take away all the guns. His evidence? The “left” will not “admit” it. Then, people wonder where polarization comes from. Polarization comes from absolutist views that allow for only two perspectives. As George W. Bush once said, “Either you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists.”
If we look, we can find people who want to take away all the guns; but we can also find people who believe in flat Earth, aliens, or anything that comes to mind. These are not prevalent views in the population. In reality, Democrats in power and people in the general population widely oppose wholesale confiscation of guns. It cannot happen and it is not going to happen.
SPENDING BY NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION (NRA)
Responding to Jimmy Kimmel’s criticism of the political power of the NRA, Ben Shapiro says:
He [Jimmy Kimmel] says the NRA is gonna smother it in money. The NRA is not among the top dozen spenders in the American political system. The NRA does not give a lot of money to politicians. The NRA is a very powerful force because there are millions of people who are members — millions of people.
The NRA spent $54,398,558 on the 2016 election cycle alone. That’s pretty big money, “top dozen” or not. Technically, this money did not go directly to “politicians,” but all the money went directly toward funding elections for politicians, basically the same thing or worse. This money matters in terms of influence or NRA would not spend it.
The NRA is a “powerful force” because of money and Republican connections. While membership of NRA is in the “millions,” the exact number is in dispute. Regardless, millions of people support all kinds of things that do not happen — like more gun regulation. The money makes the difference.
FAMILIAR WHATABOUTISM AND UNIONS
It’s amazing. Democrats never make this argument about unions that give tons of cash to Democrats — that unions are bribing people. But they make this argument about the NRA that is actively not bribing people…
It’s amazing how Ben Shapiro tries to infer that other people are being hypocritical when Ben Shapiro himself is a big supporter of unlimited corporate electioneering while also wanting to restrict union electioneering, as he previously said:
[Deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin] Scalia was the deciding vote on Citizens United v. FEC (2009), which found that individuals could work together as corporations to engage in political speech near elections. Now the [Supreme] Court will look to restore any and all restrictions on political speech by organizations not favorable to leftism… Plus, Scalia was the likely fifth vote on the upcoming case that would have prevented unions from seizing dues to utilize for political purposes against the wishes of those who pay the dues. The left will reverse that.
In the real world, union spending is highly regulated, and unions are not allowed to spend member dues on political activities without permission. There is a serious movement now to end closed-shop unions nationwide while continuing to require unions to pay expenses for non-members. Meanwhile, corporations enjoy the greatest spending “rights” ever — and they use them.
There are other differences between unions and corporations. For example, unions are formed and leaders are elected on a one-person-one-vote basis. Corporate boards are elected by holders of the most stock certificates. One is democratic, the other is based upon property ownership. Now, back to the matter at hand…
EXPERT BEN SHAPIRO VERSUS IGNORANCE
All of this [talk by Jimmy Kimmel] is ignorant. None of it is based upon guns or firearms … but this is what passes for brilliance or common sense in Hollywood… This idea that people don’t care and that’s why they don’t wanna talk policy — MAYBE policy is best talked not when you’re passionate about this issue but when you’re removed a little bit …
Ben Shapiro has no problem making a video about his views on mass shootings before the blood stops running. But when it comes to those who disagree, it’s not the time to talk. With “477 Days [with] 52 Mass Shootings,” there is never a right time for talk — not if you disagree with Ben Shapiro anyway. Imagine if people could not talk during the “passion” of a terrorist attack. Maybe there should never be any talking about any issues around those times when terrible things happen. Or maybe the rule is just for gun issues.
Maybe, with all the mass shootings, people who spoke after the Las Vegas shooting were already aware of the issue for years, and maybe they already spent time on dispassionate analysis. Now is the time for talk.
BAD ARGUMENTS, ALTERNATIVE FACTS
Harvard educated attorney Ben Shapiro complains about “bad arguments,” but, despite his strong credentials, Ben Shapiro cannot even get the facts right:
The bill, again, that Trump signed back in February did not — it was backed by the ACLU — it did not, in fact, make it easier for mentally ill people to purchase guns.
Whenever we hear people support a change in the law say that the change does not actually change anything, we need to be immediately suspicious. Why support a change that doesn’t change anything?
In fact, the February bill that Donald Trump signed made it easier for some mentally disabled people to buy guns. That is a change — a change that makes a difference. Specifically, the bill repeals a rule where Social Security provided names of certain beneficiaries to the national gun database.
DUE PROCESS IS A THING
Ben Shapiro complains that there is a lack of due process for those SSA beneficiaries who wind up in the gun database.
It [the February bill] said that a judge had to rule you mentally incompetent before you could have your gun taken away … Due process is still a thing…
First, the provision applied only to those who were mentally disabled such that they could not even handle their monthly checks. Checks had to go to a representative payee who would manage the money. This is a small subset of disabled individuals receiving SSA benefits.
Second, there is due process in the application. Unlike with the notorious “no fly list,” [PDF] a mentally disabled Social Security disability recipient receives notice and due process. An individualized decision is made, and the disabled person has normal administrative appeal rights. Due process is a thing.
Ben Shapiro often complains about due process for those in the gun database and particularly against extending the “no fly list” of names to the gun database, but he does not speak out so loudly about the lack of due process in the “no fly list” itself. As Ben Shapiro’s mirror said, due process is a thing sometimes.
PAUL RYAN FUNDED BY NRA
The NRA is not bribing Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. Again, this is just him attributing bad motives to these politicians.
Actually, Paul Ryan is on the list of legislators being paid directly by NRA. This money is part of the 54 million dollars spent directly on electioneering for Republicans.
They don’t really believe what they believe, you see,… And now he’s getting to the point of insulting, right, because … if they had a shred of heart, they would do exactly what Jimmy Kimmel wants.
GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE ALTERNATIVE FACTS
Jimmy Kimmel mentions “loopholes in the law,” and Ben Shapiro retorts:
This is the so-called gun show loophole. It is not correct. The gun show loophole — it doesn’t exist… If you buy a gun at a gun show from a federally licensed firearms dealer, they must do a background check. If you buy a gun on the internet, it is shipped to a federally licensed firearms dealer. You do a check. They do a background check before you’re allowed to take possession of the gun…
Gun show sales are subject to “few limitations,” 25 to 50 percent of vendors are not licensed, and convicted felons purchase weapons at gun shows, according to the official ATF report. [PDF] That’s a loophole and a big one too. Look again:
If you buy a gun at a gun show from a federally licensed firearms dealer…
Ben Shapiro discovers nuance (“if”) just in time to leave out the 25 to 50 percent of vendors who are unlicensed.
FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
Ben Shapiro then turns to the “federal assault weapons ban” and finds that:
The same law that is on the books now was on the books fifty years ago.
In fact, 50 years ago there was no “federal assault weapons ban,” and today there is none. However, in 1994, a federal assault weapons ban was passed. The law expired in 2004. So such a ban did exist for ten years. Ben Shapiro sets up his selected dates to jump right around it. We may use information from the change in law to analyze effects. According to many studies, results were mixed. [PDF]
If I sell you a gun, there’s no way to mandate that I do a background check because, again, I have like one gun and I’m selling it to you or God forbid I die and I pass my guns onto my wife, right. This is hand-to-hand transfers — not the same thing…
If there is “no way” to do something, then it is impossible. However, ownership registrations exist for vehicles and real property even where people have only “like one.” Such a system could be devised for gun sales too. It is possible and there is a “way.” Again, Ben Shapiro ignores the fact that many vendors at gun shows are unlicensed and minimizes the issue by talking about “like one gun” and his “wife.”
You can make the case, by the way, that we should force people to do background checks, I suppose. I think it would be ineffective but you can make the case …
Actually, “Research has found that states with more expansive background check laws experience 48 percent less gun trafficking, 38 percent fewer deaths of women shot by intimate partners, and 17 percent fewer firearms involved in aggravated assaults.” These results seem somewhat effective.
APPEALS TO EMOTION ABOUT EMOTION ITSELF
Ben Shapiro complains that Jimmy Kimmel “feels more than you feel, and he knows more than you know.” Jimmy Kimmel points out that 56 Senators voted against closing “loopholes.” He mentions a poll showing that 90 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republicans “support background checks at gun shows, [and] 89 percent of Democrats and Republicans are for restricting gun ownership for the mentally ill… Your thoughts and your prayers are insufficient …”
Okay, I have a question. Who died and made Jimmy Kimmel God? Who’s Jimmy Kimmel to decide that your thoughts and your prayers are insufficient? …
Faced with real world statistics, the Harvard educated lawyer reverts to fourth grade rhetorical questions. Meanwhile, FactCheck looks at Jimmy Kimmel’s claims and finds them to be fairly accurate, citing quotes and linking studies.
It doesn’t matter that you are fervently praying for the victims. It doesn’t matter that you are donating your time or your blood. None of that matters. If you disagree with Jimmy Kimmel, what you’ve done today is insufficient. You must pay. You will burn in the fiery bowels of Jimmy Kimmel’s hell. Just gross…
Anyone who has ever prayed knows that specific prayers are not directly answered any more than random chance would predict no matter how fervently exercised, thus the familiar saying, “The Lord works in mysterious ways.”
It’s always nice that people do good things like giving “blood,” but it says nothing about the specific issue: whether we can consider or even discuss the possibilities of reasonable regulations to reduce deaths and injuries from guns. We can do both. False choice.
Okay, again I’m not doubting Jimmy Kimmel’s sincerity. I believe he is completely sincere. I am doubting whether it is moral to doubt other people’s sincerity based upon their political viewpoint…
The title of the video grumbles of Jimmy Kimmel’s “lies.” If that is not questioning “sincerity,” nothing is. Ben Shapiro argues with himself and loses.
He’s bringing up silencers and suppressors? Stupid. Okay, there is no silencer or suppressor used in this crime. If you use [one], all it does is it reduces the sound from basically a gun shot to a jackhammer, so it’s still incredibly loud. Again, none of this has to do with anything that just happened in Vegas…
In fact, there is a huge difference in the sound of a gun with and without a suppressor. That difference matters. It will matter more as technology improves and as a long standing silencer ban is lifted. He is correct that the Las Vegas shooting did not involved a silencer.
Jimmy Kimmel says, “Common sense says no good will ever come from allowing a person to have weapons that can take down 527 Americans at a concert.”
I know some good that can come from those people having weapons. How about the cops who broke down the doors … They all had these kinds of weapons — all of them. So clearly, some people should have these weapons. It’s just not you…
You are not an expert just because you feel deeply. You feeling deeply does not make you an expert on the topic… All that matters is the feelings… We cannot have a healthy body politic when the suggestion is that people on the other side just don’t give a crap about their fellow Americans being shot and murdered in cold blood. They’re just being paid off by the NRA. That’s a recipe for people out on the street hitting each other with gloves…
Question: can a highly-educated, self-described expert make so many simple factual and logical mistakes and misrepresentations by accident?
Just like Rush Limbaugh before, glib Ben Shapiro speaks swiftly and puts out lots of words, repeating his key points incessantly to drill them in good. Maybe Ben Shapiro does not like his motives questioned — although they are certainly questionable. However, when the methods and content are directly reviewed, his factual assertions do not stand up to review and his analysis is poor.
Be careful of political pundits on YouTube.