Actually, I think gun control supporters might have better luck moving the needle if they were more explicit about couching the policy in moral terms.
It seems like whenever I hear some politician mention gun control, it's in the wake of a Sandy Hook-esque incident, and the justification given is that we need to pass some sort of reform so that this doesn't happen again.
Gun control opponents then freak out because they know fully well that whatever mild reform is being proposed will not, in fact, prevent that tragedy from happening again. The only thing that might make a difference would be some policy that went much, much further -- that would take millions of guns that are already out there out of circulation. They don't want government to do that, so they play for keeps.
Meanwhile, millions of Americans who fall somewhere in the middle hear those arguments and come to the conclusion: "Well, that reform probably wouldn't guarantee this would never happen again -- maybe the opponents have a point." And nothing happens.
Maybe gun control supporters shouldn't tiptoe around the issue. If trying to build the broadest possible coalition hasn't been a winning strategy (it hasn't), then go all in and try to build a smaller, but deeper coalition based on moral convictions.* Admittedly, that would be a bit out of character for the wonkier progressive opinion leaders - the Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow types. It'd have to come from someone/somewhere else.
*No guarantee of success, obviously, but the incremental approach is such a failure that you have to wonder if LaPierre and the NRA secretly cheer every time it's tried.
