[technochick99]

You can't engage some who relies on 'feelings' with logic, facts and reason.

True, but there's no law saying we can't fight emotion with emotion.

[Noumenon]

That's one approach, but as the saying goes, 'Don't argue with an idiot - they'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.' My experience with this particular type of idiot is to recast the terms of debate and shift the argument to the fundamentals. Example: "Why aren't you taking facts into account? How does ignoring reality affect your position? Does the fact that your feelings have no correspondence to reality mean anything to you at all?

If they persist in stating false statistics, I counter with, "That's a lie." Not "that's not true," or "that isn't the case." I use "That's a lie." If they object, then state that if you persist in saying something that reality and experience contradict, then you're either ignorant or you're telling a lie - so which is it?

Raise the fundamental moral issue of self-defense - a concept that they are completely unwilling to face. I expose their cowardice and moral bankruptcy for what it is. That's their worst nightmare.

The idea is to put the irrational 'arguer' into a position where they're obliged to defend their position - a position that we all know is morally and logically indefensible.

[Jason_b]

"True, but there's no law saying we can't fight emotion with emotion."

Right. And the first place to start is with some WWII pictures we've all seen of Jews kneeling along a mass grave as Nazis put bullets into their heads. Then you point out that THESE average citizens were denied their right to be armed.

Let's see what kind of emotions those images stir up---accuse the gun grabbers of wanting that to happen again.