I watched the video. Let's assume that the two initial statements made by conservatives are actually false:

1. guns make you safer

2. shooters choose gun-free zones

Let's assume that your statement near the end (7:30) is true:

the more guns that are around, the more likely you are to be shot.

Let's assume that your next statement is true:

the only way we are going to stop these types of massacres is to do something about guns.

Then you make a hypothetical:

if your goal is reducing injury by gun....

I'm interested in any common ground that you might have with conservatives or others. Specifically about any beliefs that about how an objective observer would look at your goals (reducing gun deaths), make the assumptions above, then look at the goals of others (e.g., maintain liberty and self-control) and conclude that you (or the state) have a legitimate claim to regulate access to guns.

I have three bullet points for possible common ground in the middle of this post. Do you see that as common ground... any modifications??? I'd like to hear from you.

thx