Wait, so elevator speech or feature-length documentary/dramatization?
We have the elevator speech down-pat; that's the 'bumper sticker commentary' you likely denigrate ("it's not about controlling guns, but people," "guns don't kill people, people do," "not one more useless restriction that has nothing to do with your dead kid," "you people have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and think you can draft effective gun or crime control"). The reason the curt discussion has grown increasingly curt, and increasingly blunt, is because the type of "seat at the table negotiations for our mutual best interest" you seek has already been tried. There is, plainly, no 'mutual interest' to be found.
Look up the NRA representative present during the 1934 National Firearms Act hearings. They were there to play ball, to draft up the best law they could using their experience, and ensure that it only impacted concealable weapons and those associated with gangsters in the mass media, but not ordinary sportsmen going about their hunts. And that's what they did. And it wasn't enough. And it impacted sportsmen & hunters regardless. And they were back to demanding more restrictions and burdens on gun owners almost immediately, until it reached crescendo once again in 1968 after a wave of high profile (again, mass media) assassinations and serial killers. This time even bolt action rifles were deemed too dangerous to be made freely available.
It really wasn't until the 80's when the ATF began unilaterally lopping off entire classes of erstwhile legal firearms (open bolt semi-autos, high capacity shotguns) through pure regulation, and large urban swaths of the US were rapidly approaching blanket bans on ALL firearms possession, that the NRA membership finally reached their limit, and began quickly replacing the old play-ball negotiators with firebrands who would refuse to tolerate further restriction.
And then we started winning. At the local/state level, then to some extent at the federal level. To the point that when gun control peaked again in 1994 and the AWB was narrowly rammed through over intense opposition, the victory was more Pyrrhic than the 'victory' at Heraclea that spawned the term, and "gun control" has been largely banished to its large, urban refuges (slowly growing & expanding, but not wholesale dominating)
Hillary is clearly trying to build toward a peak once more, either out of belief (or regret it was not to be after Newtown) or the notion it is a winning issue this election because the other big Democrat issues have been settled for now. Gun rights has been winning big almost everywhere it wasn't already losing, and has made huge inroads in previously hostile terrain like Detroit. The only question is whether those losing areas out-represent the winning ones as we approach this next crescendo of anti-gun fervor.
Fervor that I must believe is entirely fabricated, since every single last peak of gun control in the past was directly the result of real, terrible calamity, which is frankly not present for this new crusade. Newtown was awful, and motivated a lot of gun control, but the fact is it wasn't numerous similar attacks in quick succession, or sustained for years, like the gangland crime & poverty of Depression/Prohibition Era 1930's, like the civil unrest & violence of the 1960's, or like the historic and uncontrollable crime & drug use rates of the 1980's-90's. Even the cause du jour --police brutality-- is not at historically significant levels, nor the crime rate, nor the economic 'privation' suffered by poorer Americans. There is no fuel for the fire, just a lot of heat and air being blown onto a dying ember.
Now of course, Hillary claims to represent a huge volume of fuel for the fire, and to the extent that she can direct her billionaires and sycophants to delay all their other causes to focus on this one, she does. There's also her ability to foment crises like those from the past. But even then the conditions simply are not the same as they were in the past when we've suffered crushing defeats, and her/their effectiveness outside already-friendly territory is the weakest it's ever been. This isn't a motivated gun control movement against a blind, deaf, and dumb group of unaffiliated American gun owners. The NRA is positively huge compared to its historic standing, local groups even more so compared to their historic importance. Even if we believe the lies about the number of gun owners remaining constant, they have almost unanimously endorsed every kind of firearm accessible, especially those shunned by previous generations as scary or unnecessary. The presence of NFA items in the gun owning set is the highest it's ever been, there are multiple belt-fed semi-autos out there, more people than ever build their own firearms.
The notion a single president will (or even can) reverse this kind of momentum and strategic standing in an instant to render us all silent and helpless is disrespectful and ignorant. At best, our progress could be halted for a time, and reversed with sustained opposition (and if you look at the mere ages of the key players Bloomberg, Soros, Clintons, Feinstein, Schumer, there's a lot of work to be done if the next-gen gun banners are to be in any way effective; contrast with all the primary political personalities making the case for the RKBA and it's almost shocking)
I think a drama about the negative impact of a successful self defense would bring a great deal of sympathy to firearms ownership as an embattled but "necessary evil".
It's been done before, and on anti-gun outlets, no less. Heck, you'd be surprised how often the theme appears in shows from Japan, of all places*. Firearms ownership is not an 'evil,' necessary or otherwise. The need to use them is, and that need is not even the killer's in a justified shooting, but the aggressor's. Countless westerns depict the exact scenario you describe**, and the knee-jerk reaction of an 'unformed' opinion is to wish the whole scenario away by banning guns from existence.
It's stupid, but that's where the belief comes from. No one wants to see people die, so they wish away the tools they saw used to do it. The realization simply does not appear naturally anymore, in a society so devoid of strife and desperation, that we have a duty and right to defend ourselves and others by any means necessary. When you've never felt fear, or pain, you don't know to avoid dangerous behaviors like gun control.
To use the crude vernacular, "real talk" is actually most effective for emotionally uncomfortable truths, like the need and justification for self defense, the consequences of inhibiting access to means of self defense, and communicating our refusal to tolerate further restrictions.
Our position is to refuse to tolerate further restrictions...right?
TCB
*Trigun, despite being a really goofy low-rent show, actually has one of the more complex takes on the subject I've seen; simultaneously emphasizing the
fundamental duty to protect all life, and the fundamental impossibility of always being able to do so, despite dedication, sacrifice, or mercy (and the apparent contradiction subtly resolved through redemption). It also repeatedly, and at length, shows firearms to be the most effective tools available for humans to make these important moral judgments, and warrant the utmost respect and restraint accordingly.
**The OK Corral shooting, even as depicted in Tombstone, is ironically cited as evidence for the need for gun control, even though the shootout occurred when 'lawmen' tried to enforce a wildly illegal blanket gun ban enacted by the city targeted specifically (also illegal) at their targets. Yet anti-gunners and even 'undecided' people will frequently claim that *gun control* is what separates we modern folk from those *lawless* times.
