It's probably not possible to materially reduce gun deaths by trying to ex ante keep guns out of the hands of "criminals" and "crazies," because most gun deaths aren't caused by people who were ex ante criminals or crazies. Most of the suicides are otherwise sane people who have momentary suicidal ideation. Many of the homicides aren't by people who were previously criminals, but conflicts between ordinary people. Conflicts that might have ended in a shouting match - or if they escalated to physical violence (we'll never have a world without bar fights or spousal abuse), the violence would have at least a high chance of being non-lethal - but instead end in a homicide. - albaby

----------------------

Rather than quibble over definitions of crazy or frequency of lethal bar fights and spousal abuse, my central argument still stands which attempts to address the question you posed - What prevents constructive discussions....?

My assertion is the the proposed regulations do not state the mechanism by which the regulation will affect gun deaths to any appreciable degree and until that is clear, I will oppose them. If we know the population that is the source of gun deaths, then show me how your proposed regulation will specifically affect them.

The law abiding will comply with whatever but as long a private ownership of guns exists, the suicidal and the the spousal abusers, and bar fighters, and road ragers will still continue to do what they do. The gun activists will claim the goal is not total elimination of private ownership but that rings hollow, hence the stalemate.