The problem is that it's not "turning into an epidemic". People only think it is because of a few high-profile incidents. All rifles (not just "assault rifles") put together account for about 300 deaths each year out of a population of over 300 million. That's literally one in a million. And yet, to hear gun control advocates talk, if we don't ban "assault weapons", our streets will become rivers of blood with regular full-auto gunfights everywhere. (Somehow, I missed where that happened in the last 9 years.) I'm sorry, but the historical evidence is clear that at best an "assault weapons" ban has no measurable effect on crime rates. Since the last ban expired in 2004, crime rates have dropped to historic lows. What, then, is the benefit of such a ban? Without any measurable benefits, why should gun owners have to give up what they currently have? It's not "balance" if there isn't any give and take. An "assault weapons" ban is just taking from gun owners without offering anything in return. The problem is that too many people demand action because of a traumatic incident, but that demand is an emotional one rather than a rational one. They demand a "kitchen sink" approach without any examination of whether any of the proposals would actually address the real problems. Emotion is the worst place to set policy from, because it discourages people from examining the actual consequences of that policy. If you want me to support a "balanced" approach, then present me an actual balanced approach. Present me something that offers me a benefit at least as great as what you demand I give up. Present me an option that is proven to work, rather than something that has been tried over and over with (at best) marginal results. One of the big problems with Manchin-Toomey was that some of what it offered to gun owners is stuff that they should already have had. For example, under current law, you are protected from prosecution for violating local firearm laws if you are merely traveling through a jurisdiction in your care. You are also legally allowed to check a firearm in your baggage when you fly. However, you aren't protected when moving your baggage from the car to check in for that flight. It's hardly a concession to fix such a clear defect in the current law. (Similarly, the law should have been clear that HIPAA did not prohibit sharing mental health information with NICS when it was passed after Virginia Tech in 2007. It's hardly a concession to tell the states that they can do what they already should have been doing all along.) When someone is willing to present a serious offer, I'll consider it. I simply haven't seen anything that offers gun owners anything substantial in exchange for new, significant burdens on their existing activities.