http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/politi...tml?hpt=hp_bn3
Here's part of the article.

"Kristin Goss, an associate professor of public policy and political science at Duke University and author of "Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America" earlier this year that the pro gun control side of the issue "has struggled to come up with a compelling narrative" to convince more people to support stricter gun laws.

"For a long time, these gun violence rates and massacres speak for themselves. They relied on that to make the case but were up against a very powerful but very well disciplined and skillful army that was good at taking those arguments apart," Goss said."

Let's see, a professor at Duke basically admits that the pro-gun side is 'very well disciplined, and good at taking those (anti-gun) arguments apart'. Gee, guess who wins with regard to the search for 'truth' in this matter?

I'd say that in any debate, when one side is very well discplined, and is successful at picking apart their opponent's arguments, we call that side THE WINNER, the ones who are RIGHT.

The only leg she says that her side has to stand on are mere 'events' that 'speak for themselves'. Last I checked, in an intellectual exchange, mere events are not arguments, nor are they well observed empirical facts. One must also apply logic and facts to a debate.

Fail for the anti's once again.