I'm not a gun person, but I'm not suggesting they be banned--and neither was Obama
Well, of course not. That would be silly. He just wants to make them too expensive for middle class citizens to own them. That has always been the goal. Like I said, the "Assault Weapons Ban" didn't actually ban anything, it just made scary looking rifles cost more money (and not actual assault weapons, which already cost a small fortune due to ATF regulations and fees). Actually banning weapons from the US is a practical impossibility, and everyone with any knowledge of the topic already knew this. However, that doesn't mean that his "common sense regulations" don't actually harm gun owners, or otherwise put them in great legal risk; the most certainly would.
Statistics show that gun owners and their family members are more likely to be harmed by their own guns than to be used in a self-defense situation.
That is an old, and long debunked, BS statistic. The study only considered the odds that anyone in the household might be harmed compared to the odds that an armed resident of that household would actually
fire a weapon in a self-defense situation. There is enormous evidence that the number of "brandish & deter" self-defense situations are an order of magnitude more common than actually firing the weapon. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of gun owners don't actually want to shoot anyone, and most criminals don't want to be shot, so simply presenting a firearm generally gets criminals to back off.
While there are many responsible gun owners, I think many others would be better off with a safer attitude towards them.
Safer compared to what, exactly? Considering the number of guns and gun owners in the United States, recreational shooting is one of, if not the, safest activities that Americans engage in. Not only is commuting to work in a car more dangerous; so is taking a shower standing up, nearly every team sport that involves running and a ball, and living in a home with a flight of stairs. It's the rare gun owner that is not very aware of what a firearm can do.
That's what the NRA used to be about.
It still is...
https://eddieeagle.nra.org/It's liberal meddling that forces gun owners (and thus the NRA and other gun ownership associations) to commit resources to defending the 2nd.
Now it's just a lobbying organization for the manufacturers. And the manufacturers profits the more that people are killed by guns (because more people "have to have them" for defense) or fear-monger about what legislation may happen.
The gun manufacturers have their own association/lobby, and don't typically donate to the NRA. It's the anti-gun lobby that is always manipulating public tragedies to stir up public fear.
And no, I'm aware of how the assault weapons ban did not actually ban assault weapons. There were so many loopholes for gun manufacturer and modifier "innovation" that it really didn't have much effect at all. It just became a political points match.
I'm not talking about loopholes. It actually didn't ban anything, quite on purpose. It made a lot of people
believe that said assault weapons had been banned, but it never even attempted it. Specificly, it prohibited the import of rifles with a set of specific characteristics, as well as a list of specific firearms by model. It tripled the market value of a 9mm UZI within a week after passing, and kept it there for a decade, but didn't even attempt to make them illegal per se. They didn't try it, because the authors
knew that would be unconstitutional.
I'm glad you got checked when you bought at gun shows. Here in GA my friend was not checked at all when he bought his. He doesn't have a badge.
I honestly don't believe you. You are saying that a gun show dealer sold a firearm to your friend without checking his ID, nor without calling the Instant Background Check 1-800 number? Bullsh*t. It didn't happen.