That's why when you argue with liberals about the failure of the War on Poverty, the Failure of Headstart, the Failure of Obamacare (for pity sake), liberals won't address the actual FACTS about the failure.
Instead they will attack you for being against the "good intentions" of those laws and initiatives. Nor will they address the damage that's been done to the family. Nope they won't talk about any of that. Instead they will banter about the good intentions and try to change the subject to why YOU are against those good intentions.
It's never about the actual results. Nope it's about them feeling "morally" superior to you regardless of whether it helps a single solitary person.
This is the exact problem that I've encountered in REAL LIFE. They won't even allow to present evidence against them --- and it's not because they don't want to examine your evidence or be factually dishonest --- it's because the very moment you even begin to rebuke their argument, they immediately assume it's because you're evil, because they believe the facts are on their side --- after all, how could something with good intentions produce bad results??? Thus they make the assumption that WHATEVER you're about to say has nothing to do with facts, but is in fact an attack on their saintly intentions which, by default, must have produced a good outcome.
This is why it's best to start an "argument" with an honest liberal by initiating the conversation with a fact contrary to their position. "Hey, I just read that Hitler disarmed the Jews, and Stalin and Mao also disarmed their opposition before exterminating them. It seems that all of the great dictators of the 20th and 21st Century have always disarmed their opposition before exterminating them or reducing them to subsistence."
Since most ordinary people, liberal or conservative, are generally honest, you can initiate this conversation on its merits, and now the liberal will be wiling to have a discussion about Gun
CONTROL. In this argument, you will either win, lose or call it a draw, and probably without getting angry at each other.
Now, if the liberal initiated the conversation, instead of you, with something like "XXX dead children at Sandy Hook..." now the very moment you open your mouth to rebuke them, you will be met with "YOU HATE CHILDREN" or some other garbage.
So the key to educating a liberal is to initiate the conversation before they do, and with a FACT that they can readily accept as true without having to research it. Now you can invoke and compare Tienanmen Square vs Sandy Hook. You can observe that Sandy Hook was a gun free zone, as is the location of every other mass shooting, and even point out that the Aurora shooter purposely skipped nearer movie theaters that allowed firearms.
The difference, although fine, has a huge impact. When you initiate with a FACT, the liberal is now aware that you're basing your arguments on FACT, and not "racism, sexism...bullshitPCism"
When they initiate, they immediately assume, by default, that your arguments will be derived from racism or sexism or some other bullshitPCism. Thus, they will not even allow you to open your mouth. They'l just shout you down until you drown in sound and feel very embarrassed with everyone staring at you as if you're some villain. And the Liberal is not doing this with the intent of abusing/intimidating you, they are doing this because they sincerely believe that they are right and you deserved to be punished for the wicked and vile person you are. To them, there is no argument to be had, so they are not even aware that they are preventing an argument from occurring.
It takes a couple of years of "psychological" experience in order to get a Liberal to argue on facts. The key to remember is that they actually WANT to argue on facts, especially since they believe they are right, and thus cannot wait to "enlighten" you and bring you into their "saintly" cast. However, if they assume you're not going to argue on facts, then they don't want to argue at all, after all, how wants to argue on alleged falsehoods?
