THE BLOG

The Alex Jones Paradox

09/01/2013 12:48 GMT | Updated 10/03/2013 09:12 GMT

If you give a man enough rope, he'll hang himself.

After Piers Morgan imposed his views and barely let his guests get a word in edgeways when discussing US gun control the other week, it was nothing - if not pleasurable - to witness him getting a taste of his own medicine on Monday night's CNN showdown with broadcaster Alex Jones.

Jones was the one who spear-headed the (half-joking) petition to deport Morgan from the States for attacking the second amendment and ever since Sandy Hook (and long before) has been outspoken about the rights of Americans to bear arms.

Yet watching Jones' hysterical performance I couldn't help feel he's his own worst enemy, and boy, did he shoot himself - no pun intended - in the foot. Jones, himself was actually a scatter-gun of point-after-point-after-point. Important points; the fact that the mega banks who've taken over brag that they're going to take away people's guns. The fact that the FBI's statistics report a 20% violent crime drop in 9 years. The fact that the US government was the biggest killer in the 20th Century. The fact that statistically where there's more guns there's lower crime.

He asked, why are we seemingly ignoring the huge problem of over-subscription of antidepressants which trigger suicides and arguably trigger mass shootings? Why do the US government ship guns into Mexico? Why are there so many anomalies over 911? And yeah, why doesn't Morgan return to the UK face the Leveson music?

But alas, any valid points Jones made were shot to pieces by his belligerent, manic tirade and, if anything, only gifted ammunition to those that seek to tar him with the 'loony conspiracy theorist' brush.

If you've ever listened to his radio show, watched one of his documentaries, there's no denying: the man knows his shit. History, geo-politics, economics; Jones is well-researched to the hilt and backs up his arguments with government documents and other evidence. To his credit; he never tells people what to believe and actively encourages his viewers to investigate themselves.

But rather than use his vast armoury of information and facts to express his argument coherently and eloquently to credibly 'win' the debate, his on-the defensive diatribe and inability to engage in rational discourse only served to make him look like a fool.