Part of the problem with the effectiveness of our side is these anti-gun hearings is the short time limit (2 min) you have to speak, and the effectiveness of making a canned speech like most do. In my opinion, the most effective use of the time is to refute incorrect or misleading things said by the other side. For example, some guy talked about the Virginia Tech Shooter having high capacity magazines. In reality, she shooter (Cho) had 10 round magazines for his P22, and likely not more than 15 rounders for his G19
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho. Another person mentioned that 6 students escaped from Parkland when the shooter reloaded. I hadn't read anything about that, but the impression this left with the sheep is that by making sure (since mass murderers always follow the laws) active shooters can't use more than 10 round magazines, more victims will be spared when they pause to reload. This type of reasoning is what fills their heads and needs to be countered immediately - during the "hearing". In reality, magazine limits hinder law abiding more than the mass murderers since mass murderers can bring as many mags as they way, use NY reloads, and are usually in a gun-free zone of their own choosing and won't have anyone firing back for some time.
Relative to facts and firearms, the city council are as ignorant as sheep. Ignorant people simply don't know what they don't know, and are willing to accept as fact what they hear from like-minded people. By not countering directly what is feeding their fears, in their mind they are doing what is right and responsible and may have some positive effect on future body counts. It takes those who are more articulate than me to make a dent in their thinking in 2 minutes by speaking off the cuff in this way without a prepared speech - a tall order in my opinion. Few are good at that, and the speakers who were speaking off the cuff last night were almost all jumbled, disorganized, and very far from persuasive.