I went to March for Our Lives in Washington.

Being in a crowd of nearly a million people, I resorted to what I normally think in crowds, wondering about people who aren’t there. So, I’m not going to force you to read another opinion piece. I wanted to do something that hasn’t been done in what seems like a year, writing an unbiased article. Shocking, I know.

Where do both sides have common ground? To one side, their lives are at stake, to the other, their rights.

But at the end of the day, both sides want to be safe.

This sounds obvious. But in an age of villainization and polarizing media, sometimes you have to start with the basics. What is key in sympathizing with both sides is finding where the fear of being unsafe comes from.

On one side, the younger generation fears guns. Growing up after or during 9/11, they constantly cowered under their desks. They later learned how to run, hide and fight in yearly scripted dialogues given to teachers. They discussed at increasing frequencies what windows they would climb out if there was an attack. Yearly, the threat grew increasingly closer. Every high school student upon graduation has a memory of a time that a threat came too close to reality.

The largely conservative generation grew up cowering for nuclear explosions. The threat was unbelievable but farther away. They also cowered under desks. The world was a very uncertain place, and militaries were overwhelming. The world’s safety changed daily. The government seemed unable to protect them constantly. This generation feared an unsteady, or even worse, all-powerful, government more than I think any other. And they have every right to.

Both generations in their childhoods felt fear of weapons they could not combat. One generation fears a weapon from the military and an overpowering government, and the other generation fears the weapon walking through the school doors.

So while both generations grew up with distrust, one grew to fear the unknown future of establishments, because the weapon was a hated given. The other put the fear in the weapon that could be carried by anyone because the government was a hated given.

So, can a middle ground be reached when lives are on the line? I think so. As long as both sides realize that neither side is trying to attack their livelihoods.

How do we find the middle ground when there are lives in the line? I think it begins with a plain outlining of goals. That way, the debate is less theoretical and convoluted with valid but philosophical problems instead of the reality of what people want. When it isn’t about banning all guns and therefore people's rights, conversations can be made. This will keep from the extremes on both sides from taking over the narrative and may provide enough space that a middle ground can be achieved.

At the end of the day, we can all agree on one thing.

No more children should cower in fear at school.