By now, it has become obvious that the Washington DC overlords have decided to make another attempt at banning certain types of firearms. Adhering to Rahm Emmanuel's advice to "never let a crisis go to waste.", the Democrats have resurrected the Assault Weapons Ban on the heels of the Sandy Hook massacre. Make no mistake; the shooting of those children was the answer to the gun control crowd's prayers. Before the shooting, gun control, as a political issue, was dead. The Democrats knew that to submit any gun control legislation was a short path to the unemployment line. Considering the monumental failure of the original assault weapon ban in reducing crime, the citizens of this country weren't buying into the lies anymore.
Enter Adam Lanza.
His rampage gave the Democrats the impetus they needed to renew their efforts at gun control. The bodies weren't even cold yet, and the execrable Dianne Feinstein had her already-written legislation ready to go. The media, ever ready to support any and all attacks on liberty, bombarded us with perpetual coverage of the aftermath, including, in an unrivaled lack of decency, interviews of the surviving children. A month later, the talking heads were still dancing in the blood of the children in an effort to boost ratings and appear relevant. All of this served to make emotions run high, and it seems difficult to have a calm, rational discussion with anyone on the other side.
The problem is, trying to cite facts to someone who deals only in emotion is much like trying to knock down a brick wall with a roll of paper towels. Telling an anti-gun person that violent crime has decreased by fifty percent in the last twenty years, or that the number of school shootings has declined, or that the cities with the most lenient gun laws have the lowest crime rates, is usually an invitation to a vitriolic attack on your character. You can't have a discussion when only one side wants to be civil.
So, don't bother.
If someone, that you know is vehemently anti-gun, brings the subject up, disengage and go find something productive to do. It's a trap; they have no desire to exchange ideas, they simply want to use you as a focal point for their anger. They have bought into the media narrative that guns are evil, and the NRA is a tool of arms merchants.
If you find yourself the object of a reporter's attention, do your best to speak in calm, modulated tones. As soon as they start in with the usual hyperbole about 'paranoia', machine guns, or other ridiculous straw man arguments, walk away. Leave them there by themselves. Being that laziness and stupidity are the hallmarks of modern journalism, you can be assured that the interviewer has no desire to learn anything. Instead, they're searching for a 'gotcha' moment or comment that they can spin into making gun owners look like nutcases.
If you're writing or speaking to a politician, tell them what you want them to do and leave it at that. Politicians aren't interested in your opinion, they just want to know how many of each opposing view there are, and will act in accordance with the wishes of the greater number. Your letter shouldn't be longer than a single paragraph. Your statement to them shouldn't be more than a couple of sentences. And TELL them, don't ask. Keep in mind that they work for you.
Above all else, go armed. The media spin machine is upping their efforts to the point where it is likely that pro-gun people may find themselves threatened or even physically attacked. If attacked, do what you must, but be sure that you are absolutely in the right, and that you end the encounter decisively and with finality.
Like the man said, "No more Mister Nice Guy."