Quote of the Day
You will never win the war of emotions against gun control advocates. But you can’t afford to lose that battle either.
…
The gun control side does not have a monopoly on emotions. They do not have a monopoly on caring about victims of gun violence, and I am tired of ceding that ground to them because they did not earn it.
Amy Swearer
September 2026
Winning the Fight: ‘Strategic Art of Legislative Testimony’
I realize I’m not normal, but I get turned off or even angry when hearing emotional stories without valid numbers or rational legal analysis intended as a persuasion technique in a gun rights debate.
Know your audience and prepare appropriately.
She has a point, though. Your approach is a good one but a lot of people are not equipped to reason that way. So arguments using emotions can be helpful. They could take the form of innocent victims saved from evil fate by effective self defense, for example.
“Gun rights — if it only saves one child it is worth it!”
The problem is our universal voting franchise. In a rational voting system, people who “cannot process information like that” would not be able to vote. There’s a reason we don’t allow children to vote or drive on public roads or sign legal contracts. People who do not possess the ability to think rationally are children. It appears an increasing percentage of the US population cannot or will not grow up
Suzanna Gratia-Hupp. Carol Bowne.
I’m sure there are others, but these are two I could recall from the top of my head.
Suzanna Gratia-Hupp (Texas) was in Luby’s Cafeteria when someone came in shooting. She had a concealed weapons license so she could have responded, except that Luby’s was posted as a “gun-free zone” — signage which in Texas carries force of law — so she left her gun in her car. Suzanna lost both her parents in the shooting.
Carol Bowne (New Jersey) was the victim of domestic violence by her boyfriend. She got a restraining order and applied for a concealed weapons permit, which got caught up in bureaucratic delays beyond the 30-day time limit mandated by law. She was stabbed to death by her ex-boyfriend in her own driveway while the permit was pending.
The anti-gun side does not have a monopoly on emotional testimony. They want to talk about victims of guns. We can talk about victims of “gun control” laws.
If emotion is the only thing they’ll listen to, then they can explain why their emotion is more valid than ours.
“Suzanna Gratia-Hupp (Texas) was in Luby’s Cafeteria when someone came in shooting. She had a concealed weapons license so she could have responded, except that Luby’s was posted as a “gun-free zone” — signage which in Texas carries force of law — so she left her gun in her car. Suzanna lost both her parents in the shooting.”
No, no. That story can’t possibly be true. It was a *gun free* zone, so there could not possibly be someone there “shooting”.
Ugh. I feel stupid even typing that out as a form of mockery. I’ll leave that exact same form of mockery of the second story as an exercise for the reader.
I like to use the word, “Unpossible!”
The word itself is a mockery of “impossible,” so it accentuates the satire, while mimicking the form of Orwell’s Newspeak term, “ungood.”
We can use Orwell’s styling to extend it further, too. Shooting in a “gun free zone”: unpossible. Shooting by a felon in a “gun free zone”: plus-unpossible. Shooting by a felon in a “gun free zone” using an “assault weapon” in a state with a full AWB: doubleplusunpossible.
Inflicting emotional damage via “Vicious Mockery” is fun. LOL!
Not correct. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp (Texas) was in a Luby’s Cafeteria when someone came in shooting. At that time concealed carry was illegal in Texas. Gratia-Hupp became involved in politics and was instrumental in legalizing concealed carry in Texas.
Emotionally, the end result is the same.
Fair correction. But as Deoxy notes, the end result is the same: she was disarmed by law at the exact moment she could have used her gun to save lives.
Accuracy is important, yes. But in the end, “gun control” laws ostensibly intended to save lives, instead cost them.
As long as the left…which includes almost all “gun grabbers” exists there can be no “winning the war”. Because like with islam…there can be NO COEXISTENCE with them. EVER! Either we eradicate both groups entirely…or we spend all of history battling them. There is no third choice.