[44 AMP]

I commend you on the effort you obviously put into your post. It is pretty well thought out, however, you made some technical errors in terminology, and stated some opinions I disagree with. I'll cover them point by point, and explain where, and why I think you were wrong.

First, the first link you provided took me to this article, "What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer"

Is this the article you intended to link to? Because nothing in it mentions cars or some of the other points you mention in your post. Is it possible the link takes us to a different article than the one you intended??

(and, FYI, the linked article I saw is neither well balanced, nor accurate in my opinion)

alright, here we go...

The only guns that are required to be registered federally are those covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934,

True, but not fully accurate. ALL firearms are "registered" with the US govt by their manufacturers, BEFORE any sale, and in fact, before they are even fully finished. The receiver (the serial #'d part) is registered with the govt by the maker when they put the serial # on it. It is registered as either a handgun, rifle, shotgun, or "other". (the "other" category applies to recievers that are not assembled into firearms at the factory, and can be finished as either handguns or rifles) It is not an "end user /private owner" type of registration, but it is registration. Imported firearms or receivers are also registered with the Fed gov, by the importers.

Also, the article stated that guns kill about as many people as cars.

Again, nothing in the article the link too me to mentioned anything about this, so I wonder if we got "bait and switch" from the New York Times.

As for background checks:....I could go on, but I think you get the point here.

The point being that background checks do not, cannot, and will not stop anyone who's first crime is mass murder. EVEN IF the system worked PERFECTLY, it does not address, and cannot stop people who have not broken any laws until they start shooting people.

The trickiest part is those killers who had some kind of record in the system regarding mental issues. The issue here is the difference in perception between what people THINK the law does, and what it actually does. The law regarding mental illness and becoming a prohibited person barred from firearms ownership because of mental illness is quite clear.

Many people think the law bans people who are mentally ill from buying a gun. It does, BUT ONLY after they are adjudicated mentally incompetent, by a court, in a hearing where both sides get to present their cases. Doctors and mental health professionals may advise the court, but they don't get to make the decision, only the court does. SO, if a person is under some degree of care or treatment for "mental illness" it is NOT an automatic bar to firearms ownership.

It may not seem like this is the best idea, but the system is set up to protect our rights. Everyone's rights. "Committed for evaluation" does NOT meet the legal standard to deny anyone's rights. Until/unless there is evidence enough to go to a court and have them judge a person's mental condition under the law, and through due process, to determine if they are a prohibited person, they have ALL the rights the rest of us do. The system isn't perfect, but its the best one we have, with the least risk to the rights of the innocent.

Ban Under 21 (year old) - All of the shooters above, with the exception of Adam Lanza, were older than 21. People younger than 21 may only buy long arms (rifles and shotguns). I am for treating "assault rifles" (which have much more fire power) like handguns and raising the age to 21.

This one actually made me smile, because I would LOVE it if assault rifles were treated like handguns, with the only real restriction being 21 years old to buy.

And that is because of your error in terminology. You are correct, about the age limits in Federal law, 18 to buy a long gun, 21 to buy a handgun, from an FFL dealer. Some states have their own age limits about private purchases that apply as well. In some states an 18 year old can legally purchase a used handgun, in a private sale, providing all other legal requirements are met.

Now, back to your error in terminology, its the term "assault rifle". It's a very common error, because the anti gun people crafted their term "assault weapon" deliberately to confuse people.

Actual assault rifles (as defined by the shooting community and military experts) are legally machine guns under US law, and have been regulated under the NFA 34 since their creation. A little history is needed to understand the terms properly.

In the middle of WWII, some German weapons designers came up with a new concept, a rifle that used a cartridge less powerful than the standard infantry rifle round, but more powerful than the standard pistol round. This class of cartridge is known as an "intermediate" round, because it is in between the then standard rifle and pistol round for power.

And because the new round had less recoil than the full size round it could be controlled in full auto fire in a relatively light weight (compared to full size machine guns) rifle. The weapon was built to be "select fire", which means the shooter can select either safe, semi auto, or full auto, by means of a switch or button.

These are the defining features of the class, using an intermediate power round, and select fire. If it does BOTH of these, it is properly an assault rifle. If it doesn't do both, its not. A semi auto is NOT and cannot be an assault rifle, because it is semi auto, not select fire.

The term "assault rifle" is a direct translation of the German word "Sturmgewehr" This is the name Adolf Hitler gave the new design when he approved it in 1944. Gewehr is German for rifle, and Sturm is translated as "storm" either storm like a snowstorm, or storm in the military sense of storming or assaulting an objective. Other features of the weapon, such as detachable box magazine, straitline stock, separate pistol grip, etc., are common to many designs, but the defining features of an assault rifle are just the 2, intermediate cartridge and select fire.

Now, here's where the confusion sets in...
In the hysteria leading up to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, many terms were tried by the anti gunners and the media to describe the guns being used by some of the mass killers. The AK and the AR were the top of their hit list, because semi auto versions had been used in the murders.

The news called them "assault rifles" We said "no, they aren't they are semi auto only". Then the news began calling them "semi automatic assault rifles".

This proved to be too much of a mouthful to make an effective sound bite. Until one of them came up with the term "assault weapon". This term had several advantages for their arguments, because it was easily confused with assault rifle. They defined "assault weapon" in the 94 law. And the definition was any SEMIAUTOMATIC firearm (rifle, pistol, or shotgun) that had more than two of the features listed in the law. The listed features included pistol grips, detachable magazines, flash suppressors, folding stocks, heat shields, bayonet lug, and some others.

NO assault rifles (not a single one) were covered under the Assault Weapons law, ONLY semi autos. But, since an assault weapon (as defined in the law) could be a rifle, people could, and do confuse a semi auto assault weapon that happens to be a rifle with the SELECT FIRE (legally a machine gun) assault rifle. Its a verbal trap deliberately crafted to confuse people, and it works really well until people understand that it is a trap.

On to other points...

The "cooling off" period is a name given to some states waiting period in order to buy a handgun. Its a very old PR "explanation" (going back well before 68 in some states) of why a waiting period was needed, based entirely on the idea that apparently the only reason anyone would buy a handgun was in a fit of rage so they could immediately go out and shoot someone with it, and if the law made them wait a few days, they would "cool off" and either forget about the purchase or at least not go shoot someone while still mad.

It was BS then, and its BS now. Somehow it is established in people's minds that people actually do go buy a gun, from an FFL dealer, just to shoot someone right now. Never made sense to me, especially when I already HAVE a gun...or I could just buy a long gun without any waiting period. OR I could buy a gun from some shady guy in an alley...after all, if I'm going to commit murder, why would I worry about other less important laws??

End Immunity (for Gun Manufacturers) -

Again, you basically got this right, but there is a difference between the perception of what is, and what really is, and its deliberately created by the anti gun media. There is NO protection for gun makers if they make a defective product. Exactly the same as the makers of every other thing, cars included. If you knowingly make & sell a defective product, you are liable under the law. Gun makers are exactly the same in this as everyone else.

But, that's not what the other side wants you to believe. They want you to believe that gun makers cannot be sued for any reason, and they point to the law that does protect gunmakers as "proof". The law that does protect gunmakers does NOT protect them if they make a defective product, it protects them from being sued just because they make guns.

The "protection" the anti's want removed from gun makers is the protection from harassment lawsuits claiming gunmakers are responsible for 3rd party misuse of their product, because the made the product.

People trying the exact same logic with any other consumer item are considered bat spit crazy to even think of it, but somehow that didn't stop them when it was guns that were involved, until a law specifically preventing it was passed.

Ban on Bump Stocks - Even the NRA is fine with this...

No, actually that's not what the NRA said. They didn't say they were fine with a ban, they said the bump stock should be re-evaluated. A subtle, but important difference.

Research Smart Guns - This doesn't resolve the problem of the 350 million guns already in the US,...

You are entirely right about the potential problems with smart guns. The tech isn't nearly adequate to ensure reliability, yet, and may not be for some time to come. However, my main issue is with the phrasing you used, specifically
"the problem of the 350 million guns already..."

Saying it that way assumes all 350 million guns are a problem. It's straight out of the gun banner's phrasebook. Their goal, ban all guns. One potential avenue to do so is "smart guns". Sure, it seems like a good idea, guns that only work for their authorized users, but once you make that the legal requirement (and they don't care if the tech actually works, or not) they can then claim all non-smart guns to be "unsafe, because, after all, anyone can use them!!", so, that provides them the justification to ban all non-smart guns.

then to add to your paranoia, What about the possibility that there is a master override "kill switch" built into smart gun tech, and some future government might be able to turn off all the smart guns. ?? I don't see that as a desirable thing, especially when the bad guys are going to have guns that can't be "turned off".

Gun registration, meaning a list of who owns what, and where they live, etc., cannot stop anything. It only does two things, provides the govt with a list of who owns what, where, and provides a paper trail for investigators to follow AFTER a crime has been committed AND a gun recovered from the crime scene. The trail may, or may not include the person who actually committed the crime.

sorry for writing a book, but I felt you deserved a response to your effort in the OP. I hope I have given you some useful information and some things to think about.

Oh, one last point, are you aware that a prohibited person (convicted felon, etc,) cannot be legally charged with failing to register a gun? They can be charged with illegally possessing the gun, but cannot be charged with not registering the gun (or submitting to a background check for a gun) because that would violate their 5th Amendment rights.