The author of one of my favorite books, Unintended Consequences, John Ross has in the past written an online column titled "Ross in Range ". He hasn't updated it much recently (I recall hearing somwhere that he is working on a new novel) but  his archives are online and worth reading. Here is one article I just rediscovered on how to make our arguments more effectively:

THEY SAY: “We’d be better off if no one had guns.”

WE SAY: “You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns.” (FLAW: the implication here is that if you could succeed at eliminating all guns, it would be a reasonable plan.)

WE SHOULD SAY: “So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that’s unacceptable. Better we should require every citizen to carry a gun.”

Read the full article for more such responses. His point is a great one. Don't let our opponents define the terms of debate. We are right here and our fight is about human rights not statistics and compromise is never an option when it comes to our human rights.

So for instance don't argue about gun rights based on how effective bans are or aren't at reducing crime. While all of the data supports us and the worst studies out there show that gun control laws effect no change in crime positive or negative, what we are doing by arguing about the efficacy of gun control laws is in effect strengthening the basis of the anti-gunners arguments. We are implicitly saying that if gun control laws did reduce crime, violence, teen pregnancy, etc that politicians would be justified in passing them.

It might not be possible to always define the terms of debate like this but it is something worth keeping in mind.