And you go on to show that it's very easy to kill lots of people with fire.
You claimed that if you take away guns from mass murderers, they will just commit arson. At the very least, I've shown that 2 out of 3 arsons in that list were committed by people unlikely to commit mass murder with a gun. In other words, very few few mass murderers, when disarmed, use fire. The number of people who died because someone wanted to kill has dropped significantly, in your table. There is no causal relationship between gun ban and those 2 arsons. Your claim is false. "Easy" is not a statement of any substance. Either make a defense of your claim, with actual statistics and examples, or give up.
You explain how rights aren't really rights, so executing gays should be just fine for you.
When you say "right", you're talking about a sentence on a piece of paper. Murder does not become a bad thing because there is a sentence claiming so, either on paper or in stone. Murder is bad, because I have empathy and people have usefulness. That is an answer from first principles. I've asked you for such an answer about guns, but you have nothing better than the 2nd amendment.
You could talk about your right to defend yourself, but then I'd ask you how assault weapons are particularly useful in defense (which nobody is able to explain to me). You could talk about your right to revolt, but that has it's own problems. However, you've talked about none of that. For you owning guns is a right because a person 200 years ago said so. If you don't understand why laws exist, you should have no business discussing them.
A right is useless if states are free to infringe on it.
You're not the one who decides what is infringement. The supreme court has that power, and they have no problems with existing gun bans.
There's a lot of disagreement
Oddly, everyone who responded to me in this thread only talked about assault weapon ban. Maybe it's something I said.
Now, about your explanation. Your idea that a seller should only be prosecuted for not doing a background check if the gun ends up used in a crime (or whatever specifically you meant) is probably good enough. There may or may not be problems with it, but I don't care to come up with them. On a side note, I suspect that you are overestimating how centralized the distribution of illegal guns is.
As for registration, your position seems based on the idea that people are divided into good and bad at birth. The case we care about is a law abiding person who buys a gun and later uses that gun to commit a crime. Also, you keep talking about how laws will affect only the law abiding citizens, but that's not a great argument. Same could be said about any law, and yet you wouldn't say that we don't need laws.
Lastly, all these ideas about sensible gun control come up, when we "anti-gun people" try to pass something. Where are they the rest of the time? Do you not believe that there are any gun problems in US? Do you not believe that some sort of laws could help? If you did something about the gun problems, we "anti-gun people" would have nothing to say. Wouldn't that be nice? You keep talking about how many different laws could be better, but in the end, nothing gets done, so I can only assume that the content of the laws isn't the problem.
I take your car from you. I don't give you money for it, I just take it.
In a western nation the compromise would be this: I get everything back and you go to jail. In, say, Somalia, it may turn out differently. More importantly, is it weird to you that you consider violence and theft as good analogues to a democratic government? Current gun laws are a compromise, because they have been passed by people who represent both you as well as "anti-gun people". You talk like the government is a one way street, or populated entirely by gun-haters. Did you notice that there aren't laws decreasing gun regulation? That's because you are a minority.
It's how people throughout the ages have been able to easily kill others because they've been taught the others are subhuman.
You realize how big of a leap of logic that was, right?