Compromise Kills

Does the concept of compromise by definition deliver bad results for certain intractable problems?
Gun rights vs. gun control leaps to mind. Let’s leave aside, for the moment, the legitimate arguments on the gun rights side of the fence about the salutary effect gun ownership has on putting power in the hands of citizens (as opposed to the government) and focus solely on run-of-the-mill crime.
Spoons rightfully points out the following regarding a recent Chicago workplace shooting that can serve as an illustrative example:
Curiously, Tapia was undeterred by the City of Chicago’s strict anti-gun ordinance. Bizarrely, despite a prior record for unlawful use of weapons, domestic battery, and aggravated assault which should have made him ineligible to own a gun legally in Illinois, Tapia seems to have chosen to disobey the law and obtained a gun anyway.
All six of the victims obeyed the gun laws of the City and State and were unarmed at the time of their murders.

So taking this one incident as a case study, it seems that there were two ways it might have been prevented. First is the solution Spoons would favor: that more honest citizens have have legal access to and feel comfortable carrying their own firearms. Arguably, the first part of this (legal access) exists, although perhaps not to Spoons’ satisfaction, but most certainly the “comfort” factor is not there — our culture tolerates gun ownership, but only just barely, and under very limited circumstances (gun in a locked drawer at home is ok but raises eyebrows — gun carried with a concealed carry permit every day is guaranteed to get you labeled paranoid).
So: if one or more of the victims in this case carried their own firearm and were properly acquainted with its use, it is pretty easy to imagine that this episode would have turned out far differently, with far less loss of innocent life.
But these deaths could have been prevented with the complete opposite approach as well. I do believe it is possible to ban all firearms to a degree that would make it at least extremely difficult for criminals to obtain them. This would require gutting the 2nd Amendment, and basically shutting down handgun manufacturing in the U.S. and imports — yes, we’re serious, this is not tinkering — but it could be done, if the political consensus existed to do so. Would you ever achieve zero guns in the criminal world? No. But I’ll bet you could achieve it to the degree that a petty-level loser like Tapia couldn’t get one easily.
And again: those six people wouldn’t have died.
So it seems to me that, for this issue, we’ve engineered a compromise — guns are legally available, but under certain restrictions and not encouraged by society — which provides the worst of all possible worlds. Taking the “extreme” solution proposed by gun rights advocates — free and encouraged access to all — or by opponents — no guns for anyone, period — would both appear to provide a better solution than the one we have now.
Question for the peanut gallery: what other political issues in today’s arena do you see that fall into this categorization? Where else do you see the supposedly-beneficial idea of “compromise” actually producing results for society far worse than either side’s extreme would have?