The truth is that for many of the most heated debates between the left and right, the answer IS somewhere in the middle.

Take guns, for example. The left is typically extremely uninformed about guns. They tend to think any gun that looks scary should be illegal. They think that by making it harder to get a gun, large capacity magazine, or pistol grip, we can significantly reduce the amount of violent crime.

The right tends to think that guns make the world safer, and that the solution to violence is more guns. They think guns are not inherently dangerous. They also think they are necessary to guard against tyranny.

I consider myself a moderate. I aknowledge that both sides have some valid concerns. I don't pick a side and just agree with everything that side says about an issue.

So i acknowledge that guns are inherently dangerous. I acknowledge that making it harder to obtain firearms would reduce gun violence. But I also think that such an effect would be insignificant, at best.

I see the concern about arbitrarily limiting what firearms are legal. Guns aren't more dangerous just because they are black and have a pistol grip. But, I also understand that there should be reasonable limits on what firearms can be owned. For example, I don't think grenade launchers should be legal.

So the answer isn't always as simple as "the right is wrong and the left is right". Sometimes it is, but I think that is pretty rare. But it is a dangerous expectation. If you can't aknowledge that the other side has valid concerns, then you are just an idealogue who isn't interested in finding what is true.