How to Debate Jon Stewart

Oklahoma State Representative Dahm got railroaded by Jon Stewart. But it didn't have to be that way.

The left is not interested in debate; not in the traditional sense. When the left invites you to have a conversation or debate any issue, they are preparing to railroad you. They have no interest in hearing your opinion, nor  understanding your point of view. Their only objective is humiliating you and claiming your scalp.

Never enter into a discussion with the left without a strategy. If you enter the discussion expecting respect, you will leave the discussion destroyed. This happened to Republican State Senator Nathan Dahm of Oklahoma when he went on The Problem with Jon Stewart with Jon Stewart.

Stewart and his producers likely lured Dahm onto the program to ‘discuss’ gun control with the false assurance that Stewart simply wanted to have an important and civil discussion about gun violence and hear Dahm’s point of view. I know, because this happened to me.

When I first started going on tv and radio as a political analyst, I was invited onto a show to discuss vaccine mandates. The day before my appearance I got a call from the host — an older gentleman, who claimed to be a moderate. I explained my position to him and he was receptive, even excited. He said he was looking forward to having me on to have a discussion about the issue.

When I actually went on the show, there were four people involved in the discussion, including myself and the host. It was hostile and a set up. Not only was the host a rabid proponent of vaccine mandates, but so too were the other two guests. For ten minutes or so I was ambushed 3 to 1. Anytime I began making a point or counterpoint, the host would cut me off and interrupt. I was railroaded. I learned my lesson.

So when I watched Nathan Dahm with Jon Stewart, I cringed because I knew exactly how the interview was going to go. The episode should have been called ‘The Massacre of Nathan Dahm.’ The next time Dahm decides to debate a leftist on their home turf, I’m certain he will have learned the important lesson I’m conveying now, which I previously learned myself.

Dahm’s fatal mistake was that he went into the interview as a guest. I understand that he was technically a guest, but he was in a hostile environment. Anytime you engage with the left, even if it’s in their own home, you better be prepared to seize it like British troops before the American Revolution. You’re never a guest when you sit down to have a discussion with the left. Guests are treated with respect. You better be ready to go to war.

Dahm wasn’t invited onto Jon Stewart’s show for an interview. He wasn’t invited on so that Stewart could learn anything. He wasn’t invited on to give Dahm a platform to educate Stewart’s audience about gun violence and explain why he opposes the Stewart endorsed gun control. Dahm was invited on for one purpose — so that Stewart could humiliate him and make him look stupid.

So when Dahm went on trying to appear civilized and decent and expected Stewart to respectfully engage in a discussion, he got chewed up and spit out. Never ever become a passenger in a car driven by the left. Seize the steering wheel and take control.

Dahm permits Jon Stewart to take full control of the conversation. Dahl is the prey and Stewart is on the hunt. Consequently, Dahm is repeatedly led like a sheep to the slaughter in trap after trap. Stewart is never asked to defend his positions and Dahm never presses Stewart to explain himself.

One of Dahm’s positions is that more guns equals less crime. The theory was popularized by a leading and world recognized gun and crime expert John R. Lott, Jr. Lott’s argument is that violent crime is reduced when more concealed carry permits are issued. Criminals are less inclined to commit acts of violent crime when they know others are likely armed. If there are two convenience stores on the block and the armed robber knows one of the cashiers has a shotgun and the other does not, the robber is going to rob the store that can’t defend itself. It’s common sense.

Stewart says, “So, when we got 400 million guns in the country, we had an increase and gun deaths went up. So when exactly does this curve hit that takes it down? Would a billion guns do it?

Dahm responds, “Let’s just run those numbers, you know 400 million, Fifty thousand, you’re talking about a less than a fraction of not even a percent of fraction of a percent…”

Dahm is already blowing it, playing right into Stewart’s hand. Stewarts point is that there are 50,000 gun deaths a year in America and the guns are to blame. Dahm is already on the defense. Stewart is right about the present statistics that there are more guns and more deaths. But, of course, the correlation is false. But Dahm accepts Stewart’s premise.

Democrats have been claiming, for example, that red states have the highest murder rates; a deceptive claim intended to blame Republican gun policies for murders and promote their own policies calling for stricter gun control. But the statement fails to explain that of the 30 American cities with the highest murder rates, 27 have Democrat mayors and 14 of them have soft on crime, Soros backed DA’s, who release violent criminals onto the streets without bail. It’s not a red state murder problem, it’s a blue city murder problem. When you extract the densely populated and blue crime capitols — sometimes just a single blue city from a red state — these red states fall from ninth or tenth most deadly to 20th or 21st, for example.

Furthermore, California, which has the strictest gun control laws in America, leads the Nation in mass shootings.

Of the 45,222 gun deaths to which Stewart is referring — which is derived from 2020 data — 54% were suicides. Only 19,384 of the approximately 50,000 were murders. So even the number Stewart cites is disingenuous.

But let’s continue where we left off.

So Stewart says, “So, when we got 400 million guns in the country, we had an increase and gun deaths went up. So when exactly does this curve hit that takes it down? Would a billion guns do it?

Dahm should have turned the tables on Stewart immediately. Stewart is focused on gun related deaths, the stereotypical basis of leftist arguments. Dahm should have responded, “Jon, do you know how many lives are saved each year with firearms?” Jon would have been put on the defense. Not only would he not know the answer, but it would have derailed him from his agenda.

It’s estimated that guns prevent between 2 and 3 million crimes a year and 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes. 60% of convicted felons have admitted they they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed and 40% when they thought the victim might be armed. I mean it’s common sense. Guns are a deterrent to crime. This proves the more guns less crime argument true.

But the left, which ultimately wants to ban guns completely, never discusses the number of lives saved by guns, only those lost. The point to make to someone like Stewart, who believes that 19,384 gun murders is too many, is that guns save far more lives than they kill, and prevent more crime than is committed.

Instead Dahm responds, “Let’s just run those numbers, you know 400 million, Fifty thousand, you’re talking about a less than a fraction of not even a percent of fraction of a percent…

Stewart interjects, “But it goes up not down. Your argument is backwards.”

You see, Dahm has nowhere to go. Stewart knows that the murder rate has risen and so have the number of guns. Stewart’s entire premise is that more guns equals more crime. Stewart is just stalking his prey.

Do not be the prey. Be the predator. Dahm should have said to Stewart, “Actually Jon, your argument is backwards. Because you fail to consider how man lives are saved with guns each year.” Dahm should have humiliated Stewart and exposed him as the ideologue that he us. “How many crimes are prevented with guns each year Jon? How many lives are saved? Do you know?”

Jon wouldn’t have a clue.

“Well Jon, let me help you out.” Dahm should have retorted. “I know you’ve never even thought about it because it’s inconvenient to your anti-gun agenda. 2.5 million crimes are prevented each year with guns and 400,000 lives are saved.”

Instead, Dahm feebly responds, “so let’s come up with a solution…I believe it is the individual that is the problem….”

Stewart fires back, “Your solution to that is give them more guns?”

Stewart set Dahm up and he makes Dahm look like a lunatic. Stewart has falsely established that more guns equals more murders and less guns equals fewer murders. So based on the false premise established, Dahm appears to support an increase in murders.

Had Dahm established that guns save 8 times more lives than they claim and prevent 2.5 million crimes Stewart’s entire narrative would have been destroyed. Stewart, rather than Dahm, would have been painted as a lunatic. “So Jon, your solution is to increase murders by 8 times and allow 2.5 million more crimes because you don’t like guns?

That would have stopped Stewart in his tracks. But Dahm didn’t do that.

Dahm tries to point out the fact that gun deaths aren’t corresponding to the number of guns, but instead due to other socioeconomic problems in the country. “Because people are the problem, we need to look at the problems those few people are facing and how do we address it…”

Stewart interrupts Dahm and says, “But you’ve removed the ability for the state to do that. If you don’t have background checks and you don’t have registration and permitting how do you know who has a problem in terms of the people you are giving a gun to?”

Again, Stewart confronts Dahm with another left-wing talking point; namely that guns restrictions are the solution. We know this doesn’t stop criminals from murdering. In case after case involving mass shootings, for example, the crime takes place in communities that have these very restrictions in place: red flag laws and background checks for example.

Dahm could have pressed this and slapped Stewart across the face with the facts, but instead he hands the interview back over to Stewart.

Dahm asks Stewart, “Do you want to talk about the background checks first or do you want to talk about solutions?”

Stewart says, “I want to talk about what you’re doing is you’re bringing chaos to order.”

Stewart isn’t interested in statistics apart from the singular statistic of gun deaths. His entire premise and agenda was based on claiming that more guns cause more murders and asserting that gun control was the only rational solution to solving the problem. Dahm just gave Stewart permission to bring up his next prepared talking point: you’re bringing chaos to order. Stewart will expand upon this as the interview continues.

Dahm was trying to make valid points, but he wasn’t talking to an open mind and he wasn’t going to be given an open forum to make those points. He was talking to a leftist. Stewart overwhelms Dahm with false Democrat talking points, from background checks to gun registration and permitting.

Before Dahm can collect himself, Stewart sets his next trap. “Let me back up for a second. In every other place in your life, you want to bring order. Guns are the outlier for you. So let’s start with immigration. You want registration, maybe a wall maybe not a wall, why do you want that?”

“Well, one of the reasons is because the fentanyl crisis,” Dahm responds.

Stewart leans in excitedly, “Right! And you don’t know when it’s coming across so…”

Dahm interjects, “But the fentanyl crisis is twice what the gun death crisis is.”

This is another misstep. Dahm should have anticipated that Stewart would respond in the way that he did. Stewart uses this to twist Dahm’s point. Dahm’s point was that you the left only care about guns and ignore deaths from fentanyl and everything else and you the left don’t care.

But instead, Stewart intentionally suggests that it is Dahm, who cares about preventing deaths from everything except guns. But Stewart only cares about gun deaths.

Stewart says, “So, until the gun crisis gets to the fentanyl level, you don’t want to bring order….do you see my point?

Now again, fentanyl has no positive use. It only kills. It has no positive value. Guns, however, save lives. Had Dahm made this point early, most of Stewart’s straw arguments would have been neutralized. Dahm should have asked Stewart if he supported closing the border. He should have made Stewart answer that question.

He should have asked Jon, if he supported transgenderism and genital mutilation of minors. After all, the suicide rate amongst transgenders is shocking and not because they are persecuted, because they are mentally ill.

Dahm says addressing the fatherlessness crisis would help with gun murders to which Stewart responds, “So you would say no guns for fatherless homes.”

That’s not what Dahm meant and Stewart knows it. But the question rattles Dahm.

Stewart presses again, “Why with guns are you against bringing order?”

Again, guns do bring order. They deter criminals and save lives. And the point to make to Stewart is that Democrats have put more people in danger with their policies. Their war against cops has decimated police forces. Their bail reform advocation has put violent criminals on the streets. Their economic policies have made people poor and desperate, which leads them to resort to criminality. Their failure to educate children in public  schools and refusal to punish or address the deranged students bringing box cutters and attacking students and teachers alike, has created future violent criminals. While Americans are less safe than ever, Stewart’s solution is to take away the citizen’s ability to defend himself.

Again, Stewart says, “Why with guns are you against bringing order?”

“I’m not,” Dahm says.

“You are,” Stewart responds. “You’re also making it less safe for cops and for people.

Stewart lays another trap. “When police go to a domestic call it’s the most dangerous call they can go on…In your world, if [cops] knew there were firearms in the house that’s a safer call. Is that what you’re saying?”

This is a ridiculous point. Dahm should have stopped him. Dahm was never suggesting that criminals with guns make anyone safer. Stewart is setting up an absurd premise to make an absurd point.

Cops have guns because they’re dealing with dangerous criminals. They need guns to deter violence and protect themselves. Citizens needs guns for the same reason. What Stewart is proposing is that the homes of law abiding citizens be without guns, making them targets for criminals, who by definition don’t abide by any laws.

“More guns make us safer,” Stewart says to Dahm, “so when police go to a house filled with guns, why don’t they breathe a sigh of relief, knowing that this second amendment which shall not be infringed is being exercised so fruitfully in this home?”

Individuals with criminal records aren’t permitted to own firearms. Yet the do.

Dahm begins to asks Stewart, “Are you familiar with the 39 year old woman in New Jersey…”

Stewart cuts him off. “I’m familiar with a ton of anecdotes. I’m asking you a simple question, when the police go to a house…”

Dahm tries to make his point and Stewart accuses him of pivoting to anecdotes. I don’t know to what story Dahm is referring, but I would imagine it relates to an instance of a gun being used in self defense.

You see, when the left is confronted with evidence that refutes his or her talking points, like Stewart, he or she dismisses the point and asserts that it isn’t valid.

The conversation continues to devolve, but Stewart sets up one additional major trap for Dahm. While Stewart goes through a litany of laws he falsely claims would prevent crime and help police, Dahm explains his opposition to these restrictions because they violate the individual’s second amendment Right.

“So you’re saying,” Stewart says, “that registering [firearms] is an infringement?”

Dahm says, “Yes.”

“Is voting a right?” Stewart asks. This is yet another prepared trap by Stewart.

“Do you have to do anything to [vote]?” Stewart then says. Stewart presses and presses until he gets the response that he has planned as a ‘gotcha.’

“What do you have to do?” Stewart keeps asking. And then, “you have to register….so you have to register for a Right, is that an infringement?”

Stewart tries to compare voting rights to gun rights. Stewart’s comparison is illogical. In fact, it’s so stupid that it’s difficult to even address. Americans don’t have to ‘register’ for their Right to free speech. You register to vote for a host of reasons — participating in party primaries, for example, and ensuring that the voter is voting in elections where he or she lives. Voter registration is about protecting the integrity of elections, not preventing someone from exercising a Right.

And the peak hypocrisy of Stewart’s pathetic analogy is that he supports removing restrictions when it comes to voting rights. So Stewart wants to restrict gun ownership but remove restrictions with voting. It’s Stewart, who is the imbecile.

And then Stewart unveils a brand new talking point, which was most certainly distributed for use by the cabal of leftists. I say distributed because this new argument has been repeated by every mouthpiece for the Biden administration and anti-second amendment activists over the past several days.

“You want to ban drag show readings to children why? What are you protecting?” Stewart asks.  “Are you infringing on that performer’s free speech?”

Sexualizing children isn’t protecting them. It’s perverse. Nor is it protected free speech. The question for Stewart is “Why are you supporting drag show readings for children?”

Stewart’s latest trap is the climax. “What’s the leading cause of death amongst children in this country and I’m gonna give you a hint it’s not drag show readings to children,” Stewart says.

The left has discovered that their support of drag shows for kids is not popular. But they are determined to perpetuate cultural rot in America. Their latest strategy is to dismiss concerns about their intentional perversion of children by comparing it to gun deaths. In other words, you conservatives are wasting your time on the drag issue instead of focusing on real harm from guns. It’s a twofer. They are distracting from their moral bankruptcy in an attempt to renew support for gun restrictions.

Stewart tells Dahm, “It’s firearms.” “You don’t mind infringing free speech to protect children from this amorphous thing that you think of,” Stewart says, “but when it comes to children that have died you don’t give a flying fuck to stop that because that shall not be infringed. That is hypocrisy at its highest order.”

But, of course, drag shows for children and the murder of children with guns do have something in common. Both represent the proliferation of evil in America; evil, which people like Jon Stewart endorse.