Questions the left won't discuss about gun control, but should - and soon.

I have been having the gun control debate with people on the left for decades now and there's a few questions no one will discuss rationally... by that I mean any attempt to have a discussion turns into an argument ... or worse...

I'd like to try again here, and see if we can have a reasonable discussion, with the aim of better understanding the issues at hand and potentially demand more meaningful things from our politicians - and ourselves.

Who's game?

Question 1: Bearing in mind that no one ACTUALLY believes we can reduce gun violence to zero, and bearing in mind the sacrifices that would be needed to reduce violence past a certain point, what is the percentage of current gun violence you could "live with" as an American?

A few examples of how you might think of this question:

- We have lost more people to guns than we lost in WW2, in the last 15 years. That's a lot of people. Would you be willing to accept a 20% reduction in that, if it meant that the fundamental "right" to guns is basically left intact.

- Handguns account for between 65-75% of gun violence in America. Would you be willing to remove them - by force if need be - to get the gun violence rate down by 40-50%?

So - what percentage can you live with, or if you like, what percentage can America sustain long-term?

I ask THIS question, partially, because no politician will dare predict the lives their policies would save, if they were passed, largely because - IMO - the numbers would be so insignificant that they dare not admit it publicly. For example, Hillary's suggestions - at best - would only reduce gun violence by 10%, and probably more like 2-3%... which means she'd have to admit that her plan would at best mean that 2700 children would still be shot every year in America. Hardly a vote getter.