You may remember RF’s takedown last month of the Vox video auteurs’ latest bit of anti-gun agitprop. The Voxen artfully used cherry-picked and questionably relatable data to make their case — yet again — against Americans’ Constitutionally protected civil right to keep and bear arms. It was egregious enough, in fact, that our friend Steven Crowder felt compelled to take a crack at it too, and he hits it out of the rhetorical park. But sometimes we wonder if we’re all wasting our breath . . .

We devote a lot of electrons every day to countering inane, illogical, emotional and downright false presentations by the forces of civilian disarmament designed to degrade our Second Amendment freedoms. As the esteemed Mr. Crowder demonstrates, we’re hardly the only ones in that business. But does it do any good? Does it change any hearts or minds? Is it all worth the effort?

desantis blue logo no back 4 small

Recommended For You

111 Responses to DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Is Fisking Anti-Gun Agitprop a Waste of Time?

    • Well said. I especially liked the subtle implication (or did I infer it?) that we’re effectively all prisoners.

  1. The answer is yes, at least most of the time, as it distracts from the important work of winning the argument pro actively. In other words, anti gunners put anything and everything out there and we waste time thinking about “fishing it” while they dream up more drivel for us to fisk. Public relations is the name of the game and frankly, the Shannon Watts of the world are better at it than we are.

    Look forward, not back. Proact, not react. IMHO

  2. Not as long as the fisking shows up in Google. What would be disastrous is some naive fence sitter googling a topic and finding only one side.

    • Right felix, but we should be reaching the fence sitters with our own material first. Again, not reacting to something thats already out there.

      • I agree we are stuck on reaction. The sticking point is going pro-active with compelling approaches the appeal, not thunder and lightning about “shall not infringe”. We need to be attractive, not sticking a finger in the eye of everyone who is not a fanatical believer. We don’t take the left by surprise, we keep falling into the same ditch.

  3. Keep at it. Not rebuking bad info is tantamount to admitting that the information is fact. Today, we are already dealing with poor info out there, and if someone is trying to educate themselves on the matter of gun ownership, you don’t want them to only be able to find bad information because they will then take that to mean that is the only information out there ergo, it is correct information.

    • I take your point but your premise is backwards. The best way to reach people is with original content thus being seen as the expert. Reacting is often viewed negatively by the uniitiated. Now, if you are speaking to the choir, then yes, debunking works because they are predisposed to believing it.

      • There are numerous sources of gun truth out there from the 11 subscriber youtuber all the way up to the NRA. Proactivity is not lacking as I see it. Rebuttal videos are excellent sources of information and the viewer can make up their own mind.
        Ever see the “documentary” loose change? See the Popular Mechanics rebuttal? Without the counterpoint, I may have turned in to a “Truther”. How about the rebuttal to the “False Flag Sandy Hook” video? Rebuttals do a great service on any topic.

        • If you look closely, all the defense of gun rights is reactive, even the NRA. Because the masses still restrict their info-gathering to friends, twits, facers and leftist media, supporters of the constitution do not get heard until they are put on the griddle to answer for yet another horrible gun use event. Our side always plays by the rules and behaves (at the national level) rather politely. One tactic we (and I mean all the pro-gun groups) should use is to overwhelm all the social media and news outlets with overwhelming and never ending stories about DGUs, women empowered because they found a means to neutralize a physical disparity between brute strength of men and women, children who are proud and active members of junior rifle teams, and whatever else we can find. Be relentless, persistent and loud. Eventually, the left wall will give enough to take us seriously.

      • I think you make a very valid point, but I suspect that the response from the uninitiated will depend heavily on the quality of the response.

        The original statement will be granted a level of deference, as it may be perceived as novel and risk-taking and thus deserving of some leeway.

        The response, on the other hand, enjoys a period of calculation and review. When preaching to the choir, you can build on familiar ground, make jokes that the faithful will find funny, and go on a rather brutal attack. When preaching to the undecided and unfamiliar, these techniques become divisive and petty. For that audience, a patient, thorough, and calculated takedown is essential. There are limits, though – you need to be patient, but not too patient (otherwise you are patronizing); you need to be thorough, but not too thorough (otherwise you are being pedantic); you need to be calculated, but not too calculated (otherwise you are being needlessly negative).

        It’s a challenge, and I think in the vast majority of cases the original content will be better received. But, for those with the time and inclination to do it well, the well-crafted response will win the day.

  4. I doubt anything will change the mind of the anti’s. That’s not the goal though. The goal is to educate the people in the middle who are still forming an opinion. If all they ever see is declarations of a public health crisis because 33,000 sons and daughters are slaughtered all the time then that is what they will start to believe is true. A good thorough fisking not only educates those in the middle with the facts, it also unveils the deceitful, agenda based motivations of original author. Even dumb people don’t like to be treated as though they are dumb. This is why pointing out that the anti’s are lying is a double win.

  5. No, it’s not a waste of time. Never give up, never surrender! It is better to have your principles shot out from beneath you than to simply roll over and stick your @$$ up in the air.
    Just be civil and let the Statists screech and gibber and fling poo in their arguments; we’ll stick to the High Road.

  6. Well, I finished my “community service”, (Legal Aid, usually two-three days a week) for the month, and this is just the topic to jump back in with.

    It has been invigorating to joust with people on this blog, but in the end I know the truth. My side owns the culture, owns the media. We will soon own the Supreme Court.

    The value to pro-gun supporters taking on every news release or gun sense video might be in using pieces from the blog where you refute the need for improved gun safety, and attack the information we put out for the public. You gotta believe your ideas will not be publicized in the way you want, so sending some of these blog postings to the “undecideds” might be helpful, here and there. But you will not ever get the wide spread circulation you want.

    Tearing down a line of reasoning might be fun, is always possible, and might prove useful in isolated cases, so, to answer the question…you are pretty much wasting time not being part of the movement to make things safer for non-gun owners. What might work is to get to where you can convince us that gun owners will not make mistakes, will not “go ballistic”, will not harm any innocents with your guns. If you reach that level of responsible ownership, you just might convince even the most dedicated “gun grabber” that having guns in private hands is not something to fear.

    That would be a good, no?

    • If you think provoking a civil war makes anybody “safer” you’re deluded. Oh, and you won’t own the SCotUS… Ever… Trump is going to be nominating a person to fill the current vacancy and we will make sure that there are plenty more for him to replace, just like you did with Scalia.

      Let me simple it up for you, the day after you pass a national gun control bill is the day that the people who voted for it start coming down with lead poisoning.

      • “Let me simple it up for you, the day after you pass a national gun control bill is the day that the people who voted for it start coming down with lead poisoning.”

        And the ones they hold most precious above all others.

        We’re nowhere near that point, *yet*.

        Gun rights are currently ascendant, and will continue that trajectory for the near future.

        What your side, 2A, needs to be most concerned with, is adding the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back. When the suspect list in a crime reaches the tens of millions of people, your immediate problem will be easy for even you to see…

        • “Let me simple it up for you, the day after you pass a national gun control bill is the day that the people who voted for it start coming down with lead poisoning.”

          Let me pretend to take you seriously. History since 1865 shows the people of this nation do not want a repeat, will not take up arms against the government, will not even support armed response after what are considered horrifying instances of government tyranny. Past is prologue; doubtful the law abiding in this country will suddenly become a rebel mob.

      • Oh my, such enthusiasm.

        Do you really think the Republicrat Senate will do anything to cooperate with Trump? Take a look as how successful Jesse Ventura was as governor of Minisoda. Legislature hated him and very little got done for Jesse. Then he lost his office.

        McConnell and others are not wild-eyed radical conservatives, they simply want to stay in office and go to the parties. The Senate will be faced with appointing a reasonable compromise justice, or deal with Hillary’s nominee. The Repubs might retain house and Senate, but even so they cannot refuse to confirm a replacement for Scalia forever. The world won’t stand still.

        With Hillary as president, there will be so many executive orders that it will make your head spin. All the while, our side gets closer to holding the power for generations.

    • Remember while “your side” is sticking their fingers in their ears and refusing to hear our arguments: those that make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.

    • First Captain Obvious educates me that we live in a democracy during a Hotels.com commercial, then this guy teaches me that my rights and opinions are a pointless waste of time. This has been a very difficult week. Now I have to spend the weekend burning all of my literature about US history and ridicule myself for years of thinking that individual responsibility, personal accountability and liberty are important. I have been a fool all along.

      See how much better that is than fisking his post? Submission is always a better answer.

    • Tearing down a line of reasoning might be fun, is always possible, and might prove useful in isolated cases, so, to answer the question…you are pretty much wasting time not being part of the movement to make things safer for non-gun owners. What might work is to get to where you can convince us that gun owners will not make mistakes, will not “go ballistic”, will not harm any innocents with your guns. If you reach that level of responsible ownership, you just might convince even the most dedicated “gun grabber” that having guns in private hands is not something to fear.

      2Asux, I don’t speak for criminals intent on harming others (with guns or otherwise). I speak for myself. Your statement is completely unjust/unfair. You have grouped a wide spectrum of regular people with no ill intent, with criminals, and expect us to speak for their activities. This is why we have individual rights. We are not a collective – we are each unique. Blanketing anti-gun legislation over everyone in attempts to stop an extremely small percentage of criminals and crazy people is simply not just. We must be judged individually – not as a collective. It is really simple logic and as a nation we should not be victim to Majoritarianism and it’s ever increasing hatred of options and freedom as the democratic party progressively approaches.

        • “2Asux, I don’t speak for criminals intent on harming others (with guns or otherwise). I speak for myself. Your statement is completely unjust/unfair. You have grouped a wide spectrum of regular people with no ill intent, with criminals, and expect us to speak for their activities. This is why we have individual rights. We are […]”

          “Well said.”

          – If you don’t like how the public perceives you, do something to change it.

        • “If you don’t like how the public perceives you, do something to change it.”

          Why would I care how the public perceives me?

          I care about my rights, and the rights of my fellow citizens.

          Look dude, we get it, you will do anything to bend and when necessary, ignore the clear content of the constitution, because you don’t care about it. All you want is to get your way – to empower the state at any level, any time and in any way.

          Let me know when you want to accept the constitution; I care about it and have no issue with you having your rights, you need to start standing up for other people in the same way.

          And don’t bother responding, I know exactly what you will say already. Don’t care, not going to even read it.

        • “And don’t bother responding, I know exactly what you will say already. Don’t care, not going to even read it.”

          The debate is not about you, but the audience !

          Actually, I think the Supreme Court got Heller just about right: individual right to keep arms in the home, for self-defense. Maybe accepting the court’s decision would help the pro-gun effort. While most over here want all guns gone, period, you might be surprised at the change in attitude if gun ownership were limited to the Supreme Court declaration. Self-defense in the home is tough to argue against (there will always be those who blindly believe that a person can run away from a home invasion, every time; they are sadly fanatical. Recurring, professional safety training and certification, guns for the home, hunting. Someone would get my vote for such a circumstance. I would join pro-gun people in that effort.

      • “You have grouped a wide spectrum of regular people with no ill intent, with criminals, and expect us to speak for their activities.”

        My statements hold up a mirror, describing how you appear. Reality is not real, but the perception of what is real. If I believe you are an idiot, then in my reality, you actually are an idiot. Objective evidence to the contrary does not always alter someone’s perception.

        Personally, my overarching concern is reducing to near zero the number of dreadful “accidents” that kill the innocent (drive-by shootings “in the hood” are not accidents). I don’t find a home with the gun owners, so I look for someplace where gun safety is as lofty goal.

    • 2A is right about one thing; we are wasting our time reacting to false arguments. Lots of commenters here say “never stop” and I agree that we should continue to present our case but proactively.

      • 2A is right about one thing; we are wasting our time reacting to false arguments. Lots of commenters here say “never stop” and I agree that we should continue to present our case but proactively.

        I think that posting here on TTAG and on youtube as Crowder has is greatly beneficial. I speak to lots of people that don’t keep up with political issues, barely watch the news, and in general have no idea what is going on. They briefly see some sign or some clip, or a presidential speech, and immediately think the following:

        ► Guns are bad.
        ► Crime and homicides in this country are on the rise.
        ► Gun control is the solution.

        And it’s comical. When I speak to them about it – I implore them to do their own research and to make no mistake that the mainstream media has an agenda. This plants in their mind a seed, not that they are wrong, but that they might be wrong. As they do their own research that seed grows and after some time, some thinking, and their own logical deductions of what is moral to them, what is right and wrong, what is just and unjust, they reach some conclusions. And that is a good thing. They transition from being an ignorant mindless sponge of political propaganda ready to enslave everyone, to a somewhat educated person on the subject with better cogent arguments from which they have reached some logical conclusions. They have not spent much time deep thinking, so they are still opinionated tyrants ready to vote to force people to accept their opinions, but at least they have gained some knowledge of the subject and argument, and can at least see some pros and cons. In my opinion, it is at least in a better direction than before.

    • Well, you got one thing right: your side does own the media. As for the culture, save for the frothing-at-the-mouth/mad-as-hell type of leftists who scream the loudest and thus draw attention to themselves (something most gun owners are not really willing to do), if you own the culture then explain to me Trump?
      Wait. Never mind. Don’t bother. I don’t find debating with you invigorating. Frankly, it’s depressing as you seem an articulate person whose intelligence has been co-opted by the belief that you can change human nature with the stroke of a pen. But, that’s left-leaning statist lawyers with future political aspirations for you.
      I wish you the best of luck, but if your personal goal is to lower gun violence in our country then you’re barking up the wrong tree. Your community service time would be better spent in outreach to families living in communities where the parenting of children no longer exists. It may not get you as much attention (and thus elected someday) as shrieking about guns does, but if you want to know where the violence problem lies I’m quite certain it isn’t with the people you spar with on this site.

      • “Well, you got one thing right: your side does own the media.”

        Not as much as they used to. They own traditional media, but talk radio infringed on that first, and internet has made a big difference also.

        They own a lot of the media yes. Not all of it.

        • People always forget that news outlets are not all there is to “the media”. Most important, we own programming. Look at what we have available, and how few programs would be considered supportive of so-called “traditional values”. Saturday mornings are probably the absolute best training ground. The culture is becoming more skeptical of old fashioned ideas, resistant to the notion that only the privileged should be allowed to have nice things, opposed to the idea that life should be mostly work and hardship. Old fashioned values made people labor away until they were too old to live much of a retirement, and with too little resources to enjoy what life was left. Living in the now is more attractive and satisfying.

          This is the culture we own.

    • So ham and cheese hot pockets, my little pony, and back to trolling TTAG commenters huh?

      You need a friend man. Preferably a gun friend.

      • Again with the “trolling”.

        I ask once more, “Is trolling defined as opposing viewpoints posted here?” If so, boo on you. If not, then “trolling” is a wrong assertion. Either way, slinging a label does not dent the cause of common sense gun safety.

        • i have no problem with opposing viewpoints, but when you forecast the future, generalize and group gun owners with criminals when you know that is wrong and make comments by design to provoke a response – then you are trolling.

        • It would seem you don’t like the image pro-gun people project. I am just reporting what we see; gun owners can be just as dangerous as gang members.

    • ” What might work is to get to where you can convince us that gun owners will not make mistakes, will not “go ballistic”, will not harm any innocents with your guns. If you reach that level of responsible ownership, you just might convince even the most dedicated “gun grabber” that having guns in private hands is not something to fear. ”

      Statistically speaking, we’re already there. It’s not our fault that you refuse to see it.

      • “Statistically speaking, we’re already there. It’s not our fault that you refuse to see it.”

        You and I know the statistics. The problem is that the rest of our nation does not know the statistics.

        Our fundamental problem: we fail to provide simple, accurate, and useful information. We don’t need to endlessly debate all of the supposed statistics and other numbers coming out of gun-grabbers. We should be hammering the two most important trends to the masses:
        (1) Violent crime has been decreasing for 23 years (since 1993) and is at the lowest level in nearly 50 years.
        (2) The number of privately owned firearms in the U.S. has been steadily increasing since forever.

        Those two trends alone sink just about every gun-grabber statistic, argument, and premise.

        Ideally, we would also impart these two additional factoids to the masses:
        (1) Criminal gangs are responsible for about 75% of all violent crime in our nation, regardless of whether or not a firearm is involved.
        (2) Firearms are utterly unavailable to the public in Japan and yet their suicide rate is notably higher than the suicide rate in the U.S.

        These four indisputable FACTS based in numbers/statistics are exceedingly easy for anyone to understand. And they just happen to destroy the basis for pretty much every gun-grabber argument that has ever been floated. It leaves them with nothing but pure emotion.

        Oh, and if you want a more specific factoid in defense of modern military style semi-automatic rifles, just tell people that violent criminals use their hands and feet more often than ALL rifles AND shotguns to kill people. This is absolutely true and verifiable in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports.

        (Our counter to gun-grabber emotion is the topic of a different post.)

        • Oh boy, some real meat to tackle here.

          That statistic about violent crime decreasing? The obvious come-back is, see…life is safer already, statistically speaking, so there is no need for walking around with a gun. Since no one can say undoubtedly that only because citizens carry firearms are violent crimes trending down, if we try to make the case it is guns, we open up to the counter above,

          The number of firearms sold is on a huge upswing. Unfortunately, we have no indisputable facts that link increased sales to increased number of owners. Besides, flaunting the fact that gun sales are “through the roof” only compounds the fear of anti-gun goobers that even more irresponsible people are buying guns. Let’s not go there and stab ourselves in the back.

          “(Our counter to gun-grabber emotion is the topic of a different post.)”
          This is where we go so wrong. The anti-gunners are beating us with emotion, while we pound facts. Emotion can never be separated from our counter to anti-gun groups and/or individuals. We have tried facts, facts, “shall not be ingringed” to death. We are not winning when the pro/anti split in the populous is barely a majority opinion. We should want to understand how we got to this poor position.

          The facts about gang violence plays right into the anti-gunner strong point. The blame gang violence on a society that is too rigid, too self-absorbed (like they are not), to uncaring about the hidden underbelly of the richest nation on earth. The blame gang held guns on legal gun owners who could not control their firearms, or are making a profit from arming gangs.

          The Japanese suicide rate might be a good thing to highlight more often.

      • I hope you never have to bury your statistical fail. But if you do, be honest enough to tell us whether then you still believe a premature funeral for a loved one is a fine trade for gun rights.

        • That is exactly where your facts and logic fail, 2A. You’re treating violence as if it were the cause for itself rather than the consequence of human behavior. The arguments of the pro-fascists sound like someone who repeatedly places their hand on a stove and then blames the fire while demanding that flames be banned.

        • I am talking only about so-called “accidental deaths”, and how they are dismissed as statistical anomalies with no personal implications for anyone. Gangs and other criminals are a whole different subject. However, for the gun sense movement at large gun owners represent a threat as reprehensible as gangbangers. Statistics are mathematical constructs, and devoid of human element. Statistics are the refuge for the irresponsible, who hide behind faceless numbers to explain their carelessness. Dismissing the human trauma of accidental gun deaths reinforces the image you so desperately want to pretend is not there.

        • “Statistics are mathematical constructs, and devoid of human element. Statistics are the refuge for the irresponsible, who hide behind faceless numbers to explain their carelessness.”

          I have never seen such an absurd statement as this. You are really crossing the line here between irresponsible ill-informed do-gooder over to lying power grabbing maniac.

          Statistics are mathematical constructs? Can you support this with some sort or logical argument? No you cannot. Statistics are a scientific tool that is used across any number of fields to describe, analyze, test and otherwise deal with large populations of varying data sets. These are not abstract things, statistics are facts. You don’t like that? I don’t care. This is what they are, and your babbling that these things are some sort of abstract ‘mathematical construct’ is meaningless and you know it.

          One has to conclude that you are lying, isn’t that interesting. And you know it.

          You are lying, in an effort to convince other people to take away the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, and to defend themselves and their loved ones, and their property. Is that about right?

          Do you even know what a ‘mathematical construct’ is? Can you describe it?

          ‘A man was killed.’ Fact.

          ‘In a population of 10,000, xxx% of them have been killed on average over zzz time period.’ Fact.

          These are the same things; facts.

          Facts.

          Do you understand this? FACTS. Statistics are a proven, scientific field all unto it’s own. They are well understood by mathematicians, scientists, engineers, doctors, and most people who have taken high school statistics classes. Apparently you missed class this day.

          “Statistics are the refuge for the irresponsible, who hide behind faceless numbers to explain their carelessness”

          You, are an idiot. I don’t know any other way to say it.

        • Statistics are a mathematical construct (let me help you out, here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035597884443

          Statistics are a tool.

          Statistics are not people, they do not represent people, they are not stand-ins for people. Are you afraid to recognize that your family, your loved ones are deemed mere mathematical entities, of no particular value over another mathematical entity?

          I asked you a simple question: when one of your family become one of the “statistically insignificant”, are you going to tell the survivors that the accidental gun death of that loved one should not be considered really important because that death was just a statistical anomaly?

          It is so easy to be dismissive of someone else’s life.

        • “Statistics are a mathematical construct (let me help you out, here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035597884443

          Please explain what relevance this paragraph you linked to has to the discussion. And let me be clear, when I say ‘please’ I mean do it now or admit you are a fraud and a liar. I am quite serious, as I will explain.

          Let me make this very clear, like I am speaking to a 3rd grader, so that you can understand me.

          This means you cannot respond to either of my questions; “Statistics are mathematical constructs? Can you support this with some sort or logical argument?” or my other question: “Do you even know what a ‘mathematical construct’ is? Can you describe it?” by providing a link to a page on the internet that itself contains a paragraph of text – without actually making an argument that addresses one or both of the questions presented to you.

          You did neither of these things, in fact, it appears to me that all you did was to google the phrase ‘Mathematical constructs’ and pick something from the results of that search that appears to discuss the topic in question.

          As doing this search shows that the page you linked to IN FACT COMES UP SECOND in that list of results, I have to say it seems pretty obvious that this is exactly what you did.

          In my opinion, this is evidence of total guilt, and that’s all I really care about, my opinion. I do argue however that in my opinion I am absolutely correct. You cannot make any logical argument supporting your case, you link, randomly to quite literally (well off by one that is) the first thing that comes up in google that resembles an argument for you – but in truth it’s not an argument, it’s just a scientific research paper that happens to contain the phrase in question.

          These are not the actions of a reasoned and learned person, arguing in good faith with someone. These are the actions of a fool, floundering around and trying to stay above water, hoping to distract and to deflect. You are doing nothing but pounding your fists on the table and crying “I’m right! I’m right! I’m right, listen to meeee!”.

          But you are not right. You are a fool, and a liar.

          Go on and prove me wrong. Present your logical and supported by evidence argument. Take your time. That you do not and cannot do this shows me to be correct. (by the way, that right there is an example of what a logical argument supported by evidence *means*, just so you know).

          This not only shows that you cannot respond with substance to either of the two questions you were asked, but it also shows you to be an irresponsible – and worse, a person who is arguing in bad faith. That is to say you are only trying here to show off, to throw out responses and content so as to confuse the issue, to make sure there are anti 2a responses in the web pages that result from the discussions on TTAG, or whatever reason you have for doing this. Clearly however, you are not engaging in discussion with integrity, fairness and a genuine interest in sharing beliefs and honest learning.

          In other words you are a fraud. Your only purpose is to distract, you are a liar, you are a deceitful dishonorable opponent. And what is worse, you are not just engaged in some minor argument about the function of some silly trivia; you are discussion one of the most important things that exist in the civil society, the freedom of man. And as you lie, you obviously would cheat, who knows how low you might go in your efforts to disarm and to defeat men of honor seeking to preserve life, to protect the innocent, and to claim that right that was put there by our founders specifically for this very reason.

          You are a liar, and unworthy of anything but being ignored. Which is how I will treat you in the future. I suggest all others adopt the same policy. 2Asux should likely be banned, it is what I would do if this was my resource. But it is not, and this is the decision of someone else. He should not be given a platform to make any progress in his dishonest efforts to defeat us. Responding to him simply gives him that little bit of legitimacy that makes these people appear to be genuine when they are not. Ignoring him is the best policy.

        • If you read the link, the definition of mathematical construct was right there. The construct is a purely statistical tool, nothing more, nothing less.

          The point you keep missing is 500 dead people are not an “insignificant statistic” to their loved ones. You and so many others here are quite willing to scoff at 500 people dead from gun accidents. Being opposed to improving gun safety makes you less of a human being, reinforces the image that drives the most strident of those trying to improve common sense gun safety. Your ranting tells the story. You are incapable of holding a serious, rational discussion about gun safety. Here is something a gun organization did that is moving toward what I have been proposing, and good no SAF: http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/saf-hails-passage-suicide-prevention-bill-olympia/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=031916chronicle&utm_campaign=CH031916-safhailspassagesuicidepreventionbillolympia

          BTW, no person is free to do whatever, whenever, without consequence.

    • You’re starting to get pretty concerned about Trump winning aren’t you? It’s kind of like when your enemy suddenly asks if you want to surrender. That’s when you know you have him by the balls.

      • Trump or Cruz would be acceptable because either would be completely ineffective because their own party hates them. We might not get our agenda moved forward, but a Trump or Cruz presidency would ensure we don’t lose ground.

    • “The value to pro-gun supporters taking on every news release or gun sense video might be in using pieces from the blog where you refute the need for improved gun safety”

      I’m going to stop you right there, because what the anti side believes is ‘gun safety’ is not the same thing we call ‘gun safety’. And just look at the statistics. Sure firearms accidents are always bandied about by the media, they do, afterall, perfectly fit the narrative that all gunowners are irresponsible idiots who should be disarmed or even institutionalized in the interest the public safety, but are a materially insignificant cause of injuries, healthcare costs and deaths when compared to pretty much everything else. Meanwhile industry-supported programs like Eddie Eagle and Project Childsafe have explicitly helped cut firearms accidents in half over the last 30 years.

      What you call ‘gun safety’ isn’t education and support based, it’s rules and barriers and confiscation based. What you call ‘gun safety’ is a bag of shit that you continue to call ‘pretty flowers’ in order to make it more palatable to the masses.

      • And this is also why there is no damned “conversation”. Antis have to always spin words to have another meaning. To us “gun safety” means what it says on the tin: being safe around, and with, guns.

        To the antis, “gun safety” means “eliminating guns under the guise of public safety”. But it’s *said that way* to make it sound further from what they actually want, which is an all out ban.

        After all, what rational person can argue with “gun safety”?

        It’s wordplay, and they have to do it every time. “Assault weapon”. “Mass shooting”. “Gun safety”. “Gun violence”. Words that strike emotion and are used as argument fulcrums, but don’t actually *mean what they seem like they would*.

        If the antis are winning the culture battle, it sure as hell wasn’t done on the up-and-up.

        But 2ASux kinda said it himself there. That it doesn’t matter because they’re “winning, owning, and getting what they want”. I suppose, though, that wars, even culture wars, aren’t fought fairly anyhow.

        • “I suppose, though, that wars, even culture wars, aren’t fought fairly anyhow.”

          Your point being?

      • “…what the anti side believes is ‘gun safety’ is not the same thing we call ‘gun safety’ ”

        “…firearms accidents are…a materially insignificant cause of injuries”.

        I think this is where we derail ourselves. I can understand how sluffing-off the nightmare imagined by anti-gun advocates is so off-putting that they will never listen to anything else. People are not afraid of healthcare, cars, or just about any other form of personal action. People do understand just how devastating a gun can be. People are afraid of guns. If we continue to dismiss this concern, we will always look to be uncaring, callous, heartless, brutal people. Statistics comfort us, but for the however many (500?) accidental deaths caused by guns, or “mass shootings”, if you or your family is part of the “insignificance” you will have a different viewpoint afterward. We ignore this fear at our peril.

        • Or we call it what it is. Irrational, phobic behavior, and we back it up with irrefutable fact. The other side even claims it’s winning the culture war, when all evidence, inevitably under-reported by the media, points to exactly the opposite. Support for more gun control is waning. Rights are expanding across the nation, save a few ultra-blue holdouts. Public sentiment and momentum are on our side.

        • “Public sentiment and momentum are on our side.”

          I wish there was incontrovertible evidence to that effect. It still seems like a tug-o-war. My concern is we are imagining ourselves into ultimate defeat.

  7. Never stop. Always worth it. You can never persuade the antis with reason, but other, reasonable people can be persuaded by truth, IF it is presented to them.

  8. But does it do any good? Does it change any hearts or minds? Is it all worth the effort?

    Yes. They will never relent with their lies and propaganda to progress their agenda to their vision of a perfect utopia where everyone is supposedly “safe” and living in blissful ignorance. They are text-book blue pill matrix pods. Disputing their lies is always worth it. We must always continually fight. If we aren’t going to fight it, it is the same as acceptance of the blue pill.

  9. I can speak from experience that reading comments and listening to arguments has helped form my opinions a lot. And the anti gun videos are often so afraid of people calling out their crap that they disable the comments on their videos. That has to mean something.

    • It means protecting emotions is very important to the left, because that is all they have (but is does feed the masses).

  10. Crowder’s gun show loophole vid has over 1.5million views… i’m pretty sure he changed a few people’s minds on the issue.

  11. Beats me if it helps. I think a lot of dim bulbs need a “come to Jesus” moment. I come here mainly for politics and need no reinforcement.

  12. The answer is yes, otherwise people are only exposed to the generated artificial opinions and lies of an industry of paid, professional posters(astroturfers) designed to sway public opinion on-line.

  13. I’ve been exposing anti-gun cultists as liars and idiots since the bulletin board and FidoNet days, and even before.

    You’re never going to change the “mind” of a “movement” anti-gunner. BUT, by exposing him as a liar, a fool or both, you will influence bystanders who will no longer accept what they say without question.

    I NEVER miss an opportunity to humiliate an anti-gun cultist, ESPECIALLY if in the process, I can expose him or her as a racist, anti-Semite, misogynist, homophobe, etc.

    Not long ago, I tied an anti-gunner on Cleveland.com into such tortured knots, that he was reduced to pretending that he was unaware that “literacy tests” were used to prevent Blacks from voting, in a futile effort to keep afloat his laughable claim that gun controls haven’t been and won’t in the future be targeted against Blacks and other minorities.

    The bystanders DO notice.

    • “The bystanders DO notice” Special interests count on this as they pay posters to troll online forums spreading misinformation and disrupting legitimate debates/conversations.

    • “The bystanders DO notice.”

      yeah, those same bystanders, given all the information about Hillary will vote for her anyway. back in the day, the speaker of the US house was a man named jim wright. he got pushed out on account of some shenanigans misusing his office. people in texas were outraged, and proclaimed that even if he was a crook, he brought prestige and money to texas.

  14. Do not stop. I criticize the authors of this site from time to time, but one thing y’all do to perfection is destroy the anti’s entirely. You also bear the burden of having to fisk through that complete bullshit and remain sane afterwards. Honestly, I couldn’t do it. I’d probably have an anyrism. You doing it means we don’t have to, and can use your destruction of their arguments in real life, when we encounter the stupidity in person.

  15. The Pro 2A side needs something as flashy and exciting as what the anti-2A folks do but full of facts not bologna. I love me some John Lott but he’s dry as a week old bagel, we need someone very fun and articulate to make a fact based video about the US “gun violence problem” that will thoroughly debunk the antis.

  16. Fisking is a worthwhile activity, but it’s not the best or most important way to “win hearts and minds.” I’m an engineer–I am all about data and stats–but I’ve yet to meet anyone who is either heavily influenced or emotionally connected to statistics. Systematically breaking down and refuting articles is an interesting exercise that probably helps people who care about an issue reinforce confirmation biases and understand the nuances of a topic, but it’s not the kind of thing that’s going to trigger any epiphany for a fence-sitter.

    For hearts and minds, you have to make it personal. That’s why taking newbies shooting remains one of the most powerful things we can do to win. We’re letting people form their own opinions and experiences, and we’re providing a quintessential *positive* experience with guns. That does more to undermine the notion that “guns=bad” than even the most elegant fisk could hope to accomplish.

  17. Our fisking of gun-grabber “statistical” propaganda should be simple, accurate, and easy to grasp … and limited only to directing people to these facts:

    (1) Violent crime in the U.S. has been decreasing for 23 years (since 1993) and is at the lowest level in nearly 50 years.
    (2) The number of privately owned firearms in the U.S. has been steadily increasing since forever.
    (3) Criminal gangs are responsible for about 75% of all violent crime in our nation, regardless of whether or not a firearm is involved.
    (4) Firearms are utterly unavailable to the public in Japan and yet their suicide rate is notably higher than the suicide rate in the U.S.
    (5) Violent criminals use their hands and feet more often than ALL rifles AND shotguns to kill people.
    (6) Plenty of other countries in the world (both developed and undeveloped) have higher murder rates (including murder with firearms) than the U.S.

    These six indisputable FACTS based in numbers/statistics are exceedingly easy for anyone to understand (and verify for that matter). More importantly, these six facts do a fantastic job of broadly characterizing the reality of our world and destroying the premise of every gun-grabber claim of which I can recall. And believe me, I can recall a LOT of gun-grabber claims.

    That is all we need. Chasing down and fisking all of their “data” is a fool’s errand. It will take forever and people’s eyes will glaze over before we have a chance to establish even one error in their “data”.

    If you struggle to remember those facts, then you must at least be able to communicate the monumental significance of the state of Vermont, because the following description all by itself basically encompasses all of the above facts and destroys the premise of most, if not all, gun-grabber claims …

    Vermont basically has no gun laws whatsoever — no licenses, registration, or background checks to acquire firearms and anyone age 16 or older who has no criminal record can legally carry firearms openly or concealed in public without any license, permit, or any other vetting from government. And yet Vermont perpetually has an extremely low violent crime rate, always vying for the lowest violent crime rate of any state in the United States. For example Vermont’s murder rate in 2010 was the lowest in the United States … as was Vermont’s murder rate where the criminal used a firearm for the murder weapon. In fact Vermont’s murder rate where the criminal used a firearm for the murder weapon was statistically the same as all the countries in Europe … which of course have draconian gun control laws exactly opposite of Vermont. This fact alone tells us that gun control is meaningless in the calculus of violent crime and murder.

  18. The Vox bit is pure propaganda and though Crowder did not mention it, think about the presentation itself. Did that not remind you of some of the sales propaganda videos trying to sell you on buying some type of report on how to save your retirement from the coming disastrous whatever?

    • It reminded me a bit of Scientology “educational” videos put out under shell organizations (narconon, etc), really. Kind of creepy.

  19. “What might work is to get to where you can convince us that gun owners will not make mistakes, will not “go ballistic”, will not harm any innocents with your guns. If you reach that level of responsible ownership, you just might convince even the most dedicated “gun grabber” that having guns in private hands is not something to fear.”

    Substitute “gun owners” with “government” and I might agree 🙂

    • “Substitute “gun owners” with “government” and I might agree :)”

      Ok, I’ll concede the substitution because both conditions would get the result.

      • Care to elaborate on the reply?

        My point is that individuals w/ gov. positions, and government entities acting as entities, have “gone ballistic”.
        This rarely gets acknowledged by the civilian disarmament crowd.

        Furthermore, the potential is always there. Yet, there is little talk about disarming, or even, reducing arms for gov. entities.

        Last, almost no one in either camp mentions how civilian weapon ownership is often enabled by weapons procurement by gov. entities. A gun anywhere is a potential gun everywhere. A gun is a gun and the mental carve-out or exception that many people have in their minds is largely artificial. Many civilian owned guns exist because they (or guns like them) were first in the hands of a cop or soldier.

        • I would go for a completely disarmed nation. No guns for police, no guns for military, no guns for civilians, permanent jail for criminals who use guns, gun round-ups in known high-crime areas. That just might get us to near-zero accidental gun deaths.

  20. Yes. Keep telling the truth. It’s the interwebz age and the msm is dying, in large part due to their outright lying about issues.

    We are winning the culture war. Go to any range and see the minorities, young and women outnumber us ofwg.

    Look at the numbers and types of guns being sold.

    Look at the number of states that are now constitutional carry.

    In november Trump will be the new president elect.

  21. you must continue. never give up. never, ever, ever give up.

    your goal is not to change minds, it’s to inform the undecided.

  22. To change their mind? Yes i think it’s a waste of time. Anti gun & pro gun will never agree. Nevertheless, if they don’t rest, then neither should we. So I guess in that sense it isn’t a waste of time.

    • “To change their mind? Yes i think it’s a waste of time. Anti gun & pro gun will never agree. Nevertheless, if they don’t rest, then neither should we. So I guess in that sense it isn’t a waste of time.”

      Wouldn’t your recommendation constitute doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result?

      • Not really. Even if you can’t convince your opponent to change his mind, you still have to defend your position from his attack. Also you might still be able to educate others that haven’t made up their minds.

        • “Even if you can’t convince your opponent to change his mind, you still have to defend your position from his attack. Also you might still be able to educate others that haven’t made up their minds.”

          We haven’t been trying that, like, forever?

          Seems to be repeat of a repeat.

        • “Wouldn’t your recommendation constitute doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result?”

          If you can’t convince a robber to stop on his own, you still have to stop him from robbing you.

          “We haven’t been trying that, like, forever? Seems to be repeat of a repeat.”

          Yes. Like I said, as long as they don’t rest, neither can we. If you don’t stop the robber from robbing you, you might as well give him your money.

  23. It’s not about changing their minds. It’s about the audience.

    Thank You For Smoking nailed this:

    Nick Naylor: OK, let’s say that you’re defending chocolate, and I’m defending vanilla. Now if I were to say to you: ‘Vanilla is the best flavour ice-cream’, you’d say…
    Joey Naylor: No, chocolate is.
    Nick Naylor: Exactly, but you can’t win that argument… so, I’ll ask you: so you think chocolate is the end all and the all of ice-cream, do you?
    Joey Naylor: It’s the best ice-cream, I wouldn’t order any other.
    Nick Naylor: Oh! So it’s all chocolate for you is it?
    Joey Naylor: Yes, chocolate is all I need.
    Nick Naylor: Well, I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice-cream, and that Joey Naylor, that is the defintion of liberty.
    Joey Naylor: But that’s not what we’re talking about
    Nick Naylor: Ah! But that’s what I’m talking about.
    Joey Naylor: …but you didn’t prove that vanilla was the best…
    Nick Naylor: I didn’t have to. I proved that you’re wrong, and if you’re wrong I’m right.
    Joey Naylor: But you still didn’t convince me
    Nick Naylor: It’s that I’m not after you. I’m after them.
    [points into the crowd]

    • “Nick Naylor: It’s that I’m not after you. I’m after them.
      [points into the crowd]”

      Doesn’t that presume there is a crown of undecideds who are “listening”?

      I think the idea that there are bystanders who can be persuaded is largely a hope, rather than a reality. On top of which, the number of undecideds who frequent any forum looking just for “information” to help them make a decision is so small as to be politically invisible.

      Holding a debate in a hope to reach the “audience” is no where near as effective as a positive, tenacious public campaign designed to “win hearts and minds”. Our side depends on niceties while the other side aggressively campaigns. In the real world, right does not make might; might makes might.

  24. Lazy, careless and incompetent Doctors, Nurses and Healthcare professionals murder 250,000+ Americans every year. That’s 25 times the gun homicide rate. Shouldn’t our efforts focus on that debacle rather than firearm ownership ?

  25. No. It’s a waste of time.

    Mark Twain said that “a lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.” Answering anti-rights BS puts you in a reactive mode. You essentially become “the second man to walk on the moon,” the man whose name the general public never remembers.

    Instead, spend the time creating brand-new pro-rights agitprop, or donating money to someone else who is. Let the antis waste time trying to debunk YOU. Put another way, one John Lott is worth 20 Wayne LaPierres.

    This tactic isn’t just limited to agitprop. I’ve lived through times when our state organization’s annual political activism was totally centered on reacting to bad bills in the capital, trying to defeat them all. Turns out tht the smarter tactic was to flood the legislature with good bills instead, forcing the antis into defensive mode. They got to waste their time reacting to our initiative, and as a result, weren’t able to press their attacks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *