it is difficult to impossible to use a logical argument when dealing with an emotional argument. Gun owners want to keep the Second Amendment for protection of themselves and their families, while honest (i.e. not political) gun control advocates believe that fewer guns (especially the dreaded so called “assault weapon”, which has yet to be defined). The gun owner needs to recognize the fact that he gun control advocate may well be frighted by anything more than a water pistol, so attempt to use analogies:
One such starting point might be - do you know every day, 29 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. In 2016 10,497 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, and of that were 1,233 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years (who were passengers). And, this number is rapidly being challenged by drivers who are distracted by using cell phones or other electronic devices while attempting to drive. We have a multitude of laws against driving intoxicated or distracted, we even have laws requiring the use of seat-belts as well as little bells that ring when the seat-belt is not used. Why is there no device to prevent a drunk to drive, or to activate an alarm when the driver is using a cell phone?
The discussion can then be slowly lead around to gun control and how politicians are using it in an attempt to have PEOPLE CONTROL