To continue:
The war of words with the 'control/ban' types is not about truth. It is about the perception of truth. Two vastly different concepts. For them to "win" any confrontation, what is true does not matter. It's what people think is true that matters. Thus, they can make any outrageous statement (23 kids/day, assault rifle, sniper rifle, etc.), and as soon as we concede any fragment of that statement (it's only 6 kids, or 2, or 1), it will be turned into "SEE! They admit it!". In fact, the concession doesn't even have to be made by 'us', or anyone on 'our' side. It just has to be made by someone people believe, or want to believe. Like an elected official.
Any debate team members, here? (I wasn't). There has to be a way to steer this type of argument back to reality, or at least to a level more advantageous to us. Facts alone will not suffice, as the average person is not a debate judge, with a scorecard handy. Besides, for every number we have, they'll make two up, if they have to. After all, these people think it's ok to rewrite the Constitution, history, the news, or whatever, for a 'good' cause. Again, we're dealing solely in perception. But what is sauce for the goose...
This is (high duh factor, I know) an uphill struggle. Most major
and minor media outlets are on the wrong side of this issue. They will, for the most part, gleefully participate in scaring the bejesus out of the general public at every opportunity. For every one person espousing points we would agree with that gets air time, they will get 2, or 4, or ten.
I hesitate to suggest it, but if they can play on emotions, maybe we should, too. It is a strategy that should be exploited more. If Wayne LaPierre is going on a major 'news' program, he should take some poor victim, preferably female, on the show and play up the 'if only I could defend myself' angle, with lots of tears, etc. Yeah, it's cynical and exploitative. But that is exactly the kind of stuff that is killing us, no pun intended.
