When debating with antis, most of our arguments (and theirs) are posed in the area of the abstract and hypothetical.
But then you have a few anti gun activists (Tom Mauser and Sarah Brady come to mind) who have truly suffered from "gun violence".
How does one neutralize these people's emotion driven "arguments" without destroying your own position by appearing mean to the person who has "unjustly suffered so much".
One of the tactics used against us is to say that gun owners are cold hearted ******** that believe our "right" to enjoy a hobby is more important than the lives of children (Moore re-edited a bunch of Heston speaches to shove that point home in Bowling for Columbine).
I got to thinking of this because of the couple up in Bailey Colorado who just lost their daughter. Its pretty clear that their politics are pretty left of center (they sent their kids to "Peace Jam" for chrissake), but they still seem like good people who don't deserve to be told to "piss off, nobody wants to hear about your dead baby" if they got into the whole anti-gun thing (which frankly they have said NOTHING even REMOTELY anti-gun at this point so its possible they are "pro-gun progressives" or realize that gun laws aren't the issue here). I want to make it clear I'm not picking on these people, just using them as an example (because frankly they seem to have done much more than Mauser and Brady to turn their tragedy into something positive, and as long as they don't try to disarm us over this I believe they deserve our respect and support).
I understand that these types of activists are running on pure emotion and its hard to shut down emotion with logic and reason, but there has to be something one can say to gently say "you're not thinking straight so go away and leave the discussion of the issues to the adults."