If that's what you believe, fine.
The sketchy thing is supporting your (presumably well-considered) position with manipulative appeals to un-reason. The "how would YOU feel if [insert random horror here] happened to you or your loved ones?" tactic is one of the worst examples going. Using it is a good reason for downvoting.
The whole point of policy making is to get beyond the (obviously) tortured perspective of a few unfortunates, and ask if the kind of strong emotional reaction these stories provoke will actually lead to sensible policy.
The less likely the actual horror is, the more likely the answer is 'No.' It's just as likely that those closest to the horror will reject this sober and well-considered response, and start spreading hysteria and fear instead, while totally ignoring any negative side-effects that get included in the more rational assessments they're trying to undermine.
By the way, being "close to the horror" doesn't necessarily mean being a victim. It can also mean being in a position to profit from hysterical over-reactions. When this starts to happen, you really start to see the Shirkey Principle in action. Namely, "every institution will seek to preserve the problem for which it is the solution."