The "Meet in the Middle" fallacy of gun control.

Also known as "Compromise".

Dave Holmes of the former metro lifestyle rag Esquire writes:

I want to take all of your guns out of your hands, by myself, right now.
It won’t happen, of course. So let’s meet in the middle. Let’s meet at…literally anything.

The problem is we have already met in the middle on guns:

1. We met in the middle by effectively banning machine guns.
2. We met in the middle on self-defense as the vast majority of the population cannot carry a gun for self-defense without first seeking permission of the state.
3. We met in the middle on the size of guns. The ownership of any rifle or shotgun that is too short is subject to government approval and additional taxation.
4. We met in the middle on where guns can be imported from, banning the import of guns that don't fit the narrow definition of "sporting purpose".

The reality is that Holmes and many other "compromise" seekers wish to move past the current middle and define a new middle. You see this desire manifested in their calls for "Australian-style" gun control. They conveniently gloss over the fact that Australians were forced to turn in their firearms under threat of imprisonment. A fact many American gun owners are uncomfortable with as pointed out in Holmes' follow-up article:

You cannot trust everyone to read past a punchy headline. That’s why plenty of people—plenty—ran right to their >keyboards to say: “You’re taking my guns? You’ll get them bullets first.”

Imagine that. People aren't too keen on thievery.

And finally, what call for "compromise" on guns isn't complete without the delusion that the compromise seekers aren't already compromising:

There are a lot of impractical things I want and cannot have, so I must compromise. But compromise is not >acquiescence. The other side has to give up something, too.

Translation: I want to take more from you, but it I wish you would stop resisting.