As an Australian I find the gun debate in the US confusing. I think there should be more attention on the middle ground's point of view, as the arguments on bot

As an Australian I find the gun debate in the US confusing. I think there should be more attention on the middle ground's point of view, as the arguments on both extreme sides are not realistic (In current US culture). On the pro-gun side there is a resistance to the idea that gun-control will limit the number of gun-related deaths ("the criminals will just get guns on the black market") and on the anti-gun side there seems to be willful ignorance of the fact that guns seem to be already prevalent in the US culture, and many US homes. My personal view is that guns should be controlled to a greater degree than motor vehicles, and ammunition should be even more closely monitored. In Australia we still have gun related injuries and deaths, but they're almost always illegal guns involved. We tend to not have toddler related gun crimes. Gun control doesn't mean you can't have a gun. It means that the gun you have is subject to restrictions. Same as car control doesn't mean you can't have a car, but you do everything you can to stop your three year old from driving it down the motorway. EDIT: I feel like I should describe the uses of guns I feel are acceptable (given a modern agrarian viewpoint) 1: Killing any (non endangered) animal causing harm to your livelihood. 2: Killing any (non endangered) animal you are going to eat. 3: Self defense.