>>>>>>Here is another site (Australian) that shows the number of guns to about 30/100 civilians in NZ in 2016. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/new-zealand
>>>>
>>>>Unlike Australia, most firearms in NZ are not registered, with lots of international purchases making it difficult to guess. What we can be sure of, is practically no handguns.
>>>>
>>>>>>I agree, there may be underlying reasons. But if there are, restrict access to guns (and especially the most lethal ones) until we figure them out.
>>>>
>>>>Interested to know how you think this restriction would work. Do you anticipate a gun buy-back program like the Aussies with the state effectively purchasing back weapons it wants out of civilian hands? Or are purchase restrictions sufficient despite 101 firearms per 100 population already in circulation?
>>>>
>>>>FWIW, the first US gun buyback program was in Baltimore in 1974. It was deemed a failure after firearm crime rose during the program.
>>>
>>>Interestingly enough, in Australia, there has been no mass shooting recorded since the buyback. I have not seen a buyback program having been proposed in the US recently. There are other measures that may garner more support, like universal background checks for all gun buyers and for ammunition buyers, banning the high capacity magazines, the (expanded definition) assault weapons ban. You mentioned that in NZ these rifles are used (legally) exclusively for hunting, whereas here most would say it's the 2nd Amendment. However, I would require buyers to demonstrate the need for an assault weapon, even though that may not have much impact in this culture, but it would make people think twice before getting their hands on something like that. This laissez-faire attitude when it comes to guns is not helping anyone, including the responsible gun owners.
>>>More importantly, Congress needs to make it, and keep at as a priority until solutions are found.
>>>*
>>So, we force these killers to use other methods. Maybe like the Bath School - no guns - 45 dead or Columbine High School which kill 12 by guns but only because the two 20 pound bombs they had planted in the school cafeteria failed to detonate. Or, maybe something smaller like the pressure cooker bombs use in Boston - small enough to be carried in a backpack right in front of all kinds of security - 3 dead, 16 more lost limbs, and about 250 with lesser wounds. Pass more laws and force them to get a background check before they buy propane. Then pass more laws and force them to get a permit to shop in the cleaning supplies section of the nearest Walmart. Then pass more laws and force them to register for the fertilizer section of Lowes or buy chlorine for their pool. Then pass more laws ...... And I haven't even got to auto stores and pressurized cans and I guess down to chicken sh*t - lots of nitrogen there - enough to make an explosive if I remember correctly from my field expedient explosives classes .
>
>You understand that not passing meaningful gun laws to protect citizens of this country because of a fear that someday this might lead to a need to pass laws about fertilizer is 100% absolutely stupid don't you? OMG please tell me you know that's dumb.

I am not as dumb as some people who may be too young to remember the laws suggested by some members of congress and the WH staff immediately after the Oklahoma City bombing. The bombing was done with ammonium nitrate fertilizer and a small amount of diesel fuel. There are already laws concerning storage of anhydrous ammonium fertilizer not because of bombs but because it is a prime ingredient for manufacturing meth.