That's why we desperately need to find a compromise that will satisfy the concerns of both parties.
If I may be a broken record...
en.wikipedia.org
I feel like this is the way
The Czech Republic has some pretty robust gun rights for purposes of self-defense, and they also can boast some of the lowest murder rates in Europe. That has to be the "best of both worlds" outcome for anyone looking at it objectively, correct?
They have a homicide rate of 0.7 (on par with the Nordic countries), Prague is one of the safest capital cities in the EU, and people like myself can still carry a firearm for self-defense.
Obviously what we have right now isn't working... our homicide rates stand out among other developed countries.
However, I'm also very sympathetic to the concept of "I, as a law abiding citizen, shouldn't ever have to be left a position of being at a disadvantage to a criminal who either wishes to hurt me, or take my stuff, and kowtow to them and tuck my tail and hand over my wallet"
If anyone would outright reject the Czech Republic model (given their legal framework, and their impressive results), then I have to think this isn't an "outcome based" debate, and is more rooted in "can't let the other side be right about anything or give them an inch".
If the only two proposals being presented are
"I should be able to buy a Tommy Gun at Walmart with no more difficulty involved than buying a gallon of milk"
vs.
"Nobody should be able to have a gun for any reason besides hunting"
Then I don't think either of those two positions are actually taking it seriously... and are likely just appealing to whatever stats and incidents that allows them to bolters their personal position.