This is wandering somewhat afield, but its something I've been chewing on for a while.
Connecting the 2nd with quality of life is impossible when talking to someone who sees guns as threatening children in schools. It is using an argument from one perspective to communicate to someone from an entirely different perspective. Apples and oranges. Anti-gunners have the same problem: they can't understand why we keep harping on a poorly worded and largely invalidated amendment (from their perspective) when people are being killed. To them that looks as crazy as their attempt to make the world safer by putting all the sharp things in a govt. lock box looks to us.
Said differently, this is a "preaching to the choir" argument. While its true, its probably not a message that is going to spread much farther than it has already.
To actually convince someone of something you need to understand their perspective ~from their perspective~ and fit what you are saying into it. No one seems willing to do that because you have to understand what is reasonable about their position and assume they are reasonable people. Way easier, more fun (and more divisive, dis-empowering, etc.) to focus on what is wrong about their position, call them idiots and worry about how the country is going to hell.
It strikes me that both sides of the issue have a common interest: safety. If the issue were framed as "how can we make people safer" instead of "what do we do about gun violence" we might actually get the best thinking from both sides. Instead of what we appear to have now which is the worst thinking from both sides.
What you are touching on is illustrated pretty well in the musical "The Music Man."
Scammer comes to town and needs the people to see a need for a boys band. So, he focuses on the new pool hall and creates a "crisis."
Once he convinces the people there is a problem that endangers the lives and souls of their young men, he then offers the solution: a boys band to teach skills, develop pride and self confidence, etc., etc.
It seems all politicians learn this:
1. they have an agenda -- boys band / ban guns
2. they define the problem for us -- pool hall will corrupt the boys / guns are killing our children
3. they offer their "solution": -- boys band / ban guns, high cap mags, hollow points, lead-based bullets, removable mags, assault weapons and anything else they can get passed into law.
As long as this agenda-driven non-problem-solving activism exists, how can anyone expect to win any fact-based arguments?
It's like the guy who takes a perfectly new toy back to a store:
"I'd like a refund."
"Sir, we don't give refunds."
"But, it's still in the box and unused. I just want to return it."
"Sir, we only give refunds for defective merchandise."
"Oh, you do give refunds! Here's my credit card I used. Please ring up the credit."
"Sir, this is not defective. We don't take back products unless we sold something defective."
"I understand that's store policy, but I just want to return this and I'll leave."
"No, Sir. We can't do that. The sign was here when you bought it" NO REFUNDS."
"I didn't see the sign then. So, if you can refund my money..."
"Sir, we can't do that."
"It's your policy. You can do whatever you want to. I just want to return this and get my money back. That's all I want."
If this little story keeps going, eventually most retailers would give him the money just to get rid of him.
One of the prime tactics of the Liberal politicians and activists: consistent message, united presence, and always stay on point no matter what. Wear down the opposition by hammering your agenda over and over and over.
It works, which is why we see so many people repeating the same talking points over and over. It's all they have, but if repeated often, enough people who believe will hear it and spread it some more!