The State of the Debate

By now anyone on Twitter, Facebook, or other places where our opponents lurk realize that the debate has gotten quite ugly. Even the Brady Campaign has diminished considerably in its professionalism after the departure of Paul Helmke, and their apparent inability to find new, effective leadership. CSGV has had zero professionalism since I’ve paid attention to it, but lately it’s descended into sheer madness.

Joe Huffman believes they have asked for it. Barron Barnett is considerably less forgiving, and notes the out of context quotes, he also tries to set the record straight. Jennifer tried to engage in some dialog, but that didn’t go too well. I think we have passed the point, to be honest, where these folks deserve the dignity of being treated like reasonable adults. As they have plainly demonstrated, they are incapable of acting in such a manner. There is a saying that I think is very telling for dealing with the likes of CSGV, Joan, and the various other public anti-gun individuals: it is never wise to wrestle with a pig. You’ll both end up covered in shit, but the pig will like it.

I don’t really see any point in debating children. When they spew official ridiculousness, naturally, I’ll point it out. But I’m through with the childish mud slinging from the likes of Ladd Everitt and Joan Peterson. No matter what halos they want to perch atop their heads, they are intellectual midgets who can’t stand up to serious debate without lashing out, and then hiding behind their victimhood when others rhetorically hit them back. It’s not a game we’re going to win, because all they are looking to accomplish is to drag us down to their level, and even the playing field. I am still a big believer in engagement with those who disagree with us, but not with people who are incapable of civilized debate. Engagement with such people can serve no purpose.

So from now on, I will only shame and criticize these people. I will no longer engage in debate, or give any credibility to them. Since the media no longer pays attention to them, I don’t see why we should. Let them continue to grease the slide that leads into the dustbin of history. and we can watch with detached amusement.

30 thoughts on “The State of the Debate”

  1. I think it’s important to hit them anywhere they do not control the message, such as opposing views, Huffpo, and in particular any news article they link to. I actually sort of enjoy letting them know that I got to a particular article from their FB page. It’s nice to let them do our legwork for us.

  2. ” I will no longer engage in debate, or give any credibility to them. Since the media no longer pays attention to them, I don’t see why we should.”

    Indeed, indeed! I came to a similar conclusion about Joan Peterson a while ago.

    Please, let’s all stop posting on their sites, especially Joans so-called “Common Gunsense”. I would like to find out how she would react if she published an article, only to have no comments.

  3. “professionalism after the departure of Paul Helmke”

    He was professional? Who knew?

    As for debate….no one is debating Joan. One only CORRECTS Joan, then waits to see if she will post it. I do it for the lurkers. And I go there to read good gunny comments. And she has the perfect site to send those on the fence, to demonstrate their idiocy and lack of a reality based mind set. The fence sitters that I’ve sent there have come back FIRMLY on our side of the fence.

    1. I think Helmke was professional most of the time–it is difficult when the truth is not on your side. I am not even sure he was a true believer in his cause as much as he was just earning his paycheck.

  4. I find value in engaging Japete. She’ll hold onto her positions as far as it takes her, which is often much further into the depths of “nonsense” than her main post. In my last dialog with her she went from linking a CSGV “study” on her post, to defying the basic tenets of supply and demand economics in her comments just to cling to the conclusion that gun sales aren’t up. She is willing to believe that hundreds of gun manufacturers colluded to waste billions of dollars making 12 million extra guns (even though nobody is buying them), presumably just to fool the media into writing “gun sales are up” stories. She did not go as far in explaining how they have money left over to still buy congress to cater to the 2% of the population that wants to make it more dangerous for everybody else by carrying guns everywhere they go. All I can figure is that us 2% are even richer than the 1%.

    1. I’ve come to the same conclusion, I kinda want her to keep going because it’s so damn funny. I’ve noticed that she’s become more of an absolutist as of late too; we need to ‘guarantee’ that a perp is after our lives and not our stuff, and we need ‘exact’ sales numbers not a huge increase in manufacturing, or we’re wrong.

      If that 12+ million increase in guns isn’t a sales increase, then just what would be?

        1. I know, I love spending thousands of dollars on guns and just leaving them at the store for the employees to fondle.

          If Joan would just say ‘we don’t know exactly how much sales have risen’ and stuck to that, she’d be right. Instead, she’s coming off like a flat-Earther, arguing against indisputable evidence that’s provided by the ATF and not the ‘gun lobby’. She just isn’t picking her battles very well.

          1. I’m sort of torn between the value of engagement, in getting them to say ridiculous things, and twist themselves into ridiculous contortions in defense of their many tenable positions, and believing there’s no point in engaging with dim-witted fanatics who you’re just not going to convince. I don’t think too many middle of the road folks are going to be reading her blog in search of enlightenment on the issue, and if they do, I think the overall lack of coherence in her writing will ensure they don’t stay around long.

            1. The thing with her is that you don’t even need to bait her much to get comedy gold. You can lay out the facts and links nicely just like TS did with gun sales, and rather than conceding that yeah there is at least some increase, she vehemently denies it.

              At the same time she’ll be saying that the gun lobby is rolling in cash from all their sales which is how the NRA buys off all the politicians. She mocks herself with hardly any effort on our part.

  5. INHO, it’s about time! We, the pro gun folks, are responsible for 95% of their traffic.

    IGNORE them and keep spreading the truth.

  6. Sebastian,

    Never wrestle with a pig if it is your intention to win against the pig – absolutely.

    But if you want to capture the attention of the people sitting on the fence, you have to go where the pig is.

    That is the value of engaging Joan and Baldr – at their sites – in debate.

    We get our points across where people searching for information about gun control will find it. We show those people there are two sides of the issue; one side with only appeals to emotion and one side with facts, data, statistics and heartfelt emotional statements.

    We need to show people that “they are intellectual midgets who can’t stand up to serious debate without lashing out, and then hiding behind their victimhood when others rhetorically hit them back.” and the ONLY way to do that is to engage them in serious debate.

    1. I’m not saying they should be totally ignored. But nor do I think they should be approached as reasonable adults either. That calls for a different means of engagement.

  7. Paul Helmke was a decent guy but he was as wrong as Joan. In my mind that makes him little more than a puppet and smegma willing to take money to try and steal rights from others.

    This “debate” has been over for a long time. Now what we see is desperation on their part to get us to come to their sites so they can generate interest. We need to stop visiting them and instead treat them with the same scorn we treat anyone who tries to take away the freedoms we have.

    Debate is only useful when there’s a possibility of changing minds. A fanatic cannot be debated. Let them rot in their own filth.

    1. There’s always going to be a degree of spin in many issues. The Bradys by necessity have to use spin more than our side does, though our side has to use it to. The key is to stay on message and remain consistent with you organization’s position. This is also known as professionalism. Part of professionalism is also rising above the debate, so to speak. You would never see NRA engaging insignificant people. Years ago it was odd for the Brady Campaign to get involved in debate with bloggers (though it did happen). That is also part of professionalism.

      But lately Brady has gotten way off message. I’m not sure they honestly even have a message.

        1. Yes… but in that instance they are addressing Horwitz as E.D. of CSGV… from a piece appearing in a popular mainstream outlet. That’s not the same thing as what I’m speaking of. I will continue to respond to stupidity like that, and I don’t blame NRA for doing so as well.

          What I’m speaking of is engaging with insignificant people they have trolling on Twitter, FB, and blogs.

          1. You may stop, but they won’t. CSGV has taken a personal liking to you and will continue to use you as an example until you shutdown the blog, quit as EVC and disappear.

            The only way they will stop is if they think you’re enjoying the notoriety. Nobody likes to make their opposition happy. Better still to exploit their attacks to promote the 2A. Antis are totally unable to deal with a smiling, happy pro-gun opposition who will not kowtow to their PSH.

            1. Oh, I could care less that they are exploiting my real name. I’ve never gone to great lengths to hide it, which is how they found out about it at all. I’m just rather amazed by what children they are demonstrate themselves as being by resorting to basically name calling.

              And I’m not going to quit going after them when they do stupid things. What I’m done is engaging them as reasonable adults.

  8. Confrontation is a useful political tool. Our side needs to understand that and use it to our advantage. That does not mean just calling them all assholes. Calling fraud and mocking them on their PR stunts is fair game and very effective as evidenced by their latest outburst.

    Their reaction is a calculated political maneuver designed to play upon your sense of goodness and fair play and should be recognized as such. They are on the defensive and are hoping you will back down. Now is not the time for that. Our side has the advantage now and we need to make use of it.

  9. Anybody notice that Baldnutz Odersome over at New Trajectory has stopped allowing comments on his last few posts? Maybe he’s realised that he has NO sympathizers over there.

Comments are closed.