I agree that life is risky, of course. I realize that we will never get to "zero", but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't aim for it. You think it's better to aim for 1 murder per year? Per day? Maybe 10 murders a month? Is that a good goal? Of course you want to stop all of them, even if you know you won't be able to.
It absolutely DOES mean that 'we' would NOT 'aim for it.' It will be hugely expensive in a number of ways to try to grab all guns and has zero chance of being effective anyway. The only thing which it will accomplish in the U.S. is that the ratio of armed responsible citizens to armed criminals will be vastly less, and there will be a blood bath. Most of the blood will be that of the responsible civilians since criminals will switch from non-confrontational crime to confrontational crime when they can do so safely.
Currently criminals cannot rely on confrontational crime in rural areas with very low police protection, and there is limited such protection because it is simply not economically feasible to employ a large police force in such areas. The guiding hands funding/motivating the 'gun grabbers' are fully aware of these dynamics, but they also tend to believe that citizens should be aggregated into dense population centers where they can be more easily monitored and the rural areas should be minimally inhabited (mostly by their own staff engaged in resource extraction.) Rampant crime will provide another justification for population movements.
You still don't really answer the question. You don't think it would be good to have zero gun violence. I understand that it is pretty much an impossible number to attain. What do you think is a good goal then? How would you put it? You seriously think that criminals don't commit crimes because they know that other people have guns? Why don't criminals with guns commit many crimes in Canada, for example, when they know that people almost definitely won't have guns? Do you have an explanation for that?