The only thing each "accomplishes" is to lend slight general credence to the others otherwise absurd alarmist fears. Ironically, while each thinks it performs a vital public service in "standing up to" the other, if either of them shut up for five seconds the far more rational majority would quickly and rightly dismiss the other.

At least half the country also believes guns should be much more regulated. This is indeed the flip side of the abortion debate, where extreme pro-lifers represent ALL pro-choice people as indiscriminate deliberate baby murderers who support "no fault" abortion on demand right up until labor, and extreme pro-choicers represent ALL pro-lifers as indiscriminate deliberate woman murderers who want 12 year olds to die bearing their rapist fathers deformed non-viable babies. In both cases, as with most issues, each second spent listening to one extremists caricature of their opponent wastes time far better spent on worthwhile, necessary, discussion.

Hence the vast majority ignores both radical fringes in both debates: Because it opposes both as nothing more or less than obstacles to responsible public policy.