The right to bear arms is a fundamental right, an extension of the right to self defense. Most Americans view zealous defense of other rights in a positive right - a classic example is that the ACLU defends the rights of neo-nazis to march and share their speech. Thinking that people who zealously defend the right to self defense against infringement are somehow pro-crime or pro-violence is like thinking the ACLU is pro-hate.
To someone who believes that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right, your OP amounts to more or less “why do people support hate speech? it seems like restricting bad speech is obvious, and I’m willing to give that way, why are these zealous nuts fighting for this issue?”
And there’s no popular, well funded organizations out there formed with the purpose of banning free speech. For gun issues, there is, so the threat faced by those who advocate that right are much more insidious and deliberate.
To address your specific issues:
-
Background checks. The NRA does support them, and they have been routinely part of buying a gun for over two decades.
-
Waiting periods. These laws are inelegant - for instance, why make someone who owns a gun go through a waiting period to buy a second one? But more importantly - what if someone is buying a gun because they’re under an actual threat? A jilted lover threatens them, the police say there’s nothing they can do until he does something, and this person fears for their life and goes out to buy a gun only to be told that they have to wait two weeks.
-
Assault rifles.
Your whole assumption that the only reason someone would own a gun is hunting is asinine. The primary and most important reason to own a gun is self defense, and so, the ability for guns to “kill humans” is rather important and not some sort of irrelevant aside or drawback.
The vast majority of guns used in crimes in the US are handguns. Outside of some niche big caliber revolvers, handguns are not used for hunting. Why is it that you have this particular interest in what you consider unsuitable for hunting assault rifles (which is not actually true - AR-15s are very commonly used as varmint rifles) when you don’t seem to care about handguns, even though handguns are responsible for the vast majority of crimes?
“Assault rifles” are already effectively banned in the US. In 1934, any rifle capable of fully automatic fire was heavily restricted. This gun control arguably was actually very effective, because millions of owners owned controlled and registered fully automatic weapons between 1934 and 1986, at which point they were banned (new production and importation) anyway, despite a perfect safety record, because the people who advocate for gun control are not doing it to enact the most effective policies. More on that.
So assault rifles are already effectively banned. What you’re ranting about is “assault weapons”, which are a class of weapons invented by gun control advocates to scare the public into thinking they’re “assault rifles” and need to be banned too. Because “assault weapons” are not functionally different from weapons the public traditionally supports, assault weapons bans focus on cosmetic features - essentially, they ban scary looking guns. More on that.
All forms of long guns - all rifles and shotguns - are involved in less than 7 percent of crime. “Assault weapons” are involved in only a small fraction of that. Overall, significantly under 2% of crimes involve “assault weapons” of any stripe. Why, then, is there such a focus on them in the media? Because they’re sensational, they’re scary, they make for a good story. And because gun control advocates know that they have no realistic chance of banning handguns in the US right now, so they chip away where they can - they think they can scare the public into conflating “assault weapons” with “assault rifles” and think they’re somehow super weapons disproportionately lethal.
If gun control advocates felt like they could get all guns manufactured on a Tuesday banned, they’d do that too. They’ll ban whatever they feel like they can dredge up public support for, not what would actually make sense if you were trying to craft laws to protect public safety. More on that.
The gun show loophole you mention is entirely a myth along the same lines. Nothing works any differently at a gun show than anywhere else.
- Fingerprint trigger locks. Guns are extremely reliable machines. We’ve been perfecting them for hundreds of years. A well-designed, well-maintained gun has over a 99.999% chance of working when you need it to. And your life may one day depend on it working when you need it to.
When you introduce something like an electronic fingerprint reader, you introduce many many more modes of failure. The batteries could fail. The electronics can fail. You could improperly use the fingerprint reader. Maybe your fingers are sweaty or dirty and it fails. Such a thing would increase the potential failure rate of the gun to fire by several orders of magnitude. And this would happen right when you needed it most, and when your life might depend on it.