>>Interestingly enough, in Australia, there has been no mass shooting recorded since the buyback

No buyback in NZ, and not a single mass shooting using an assault rifle in the last 25 years despite large numbers in circulation.

>>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.

In fact the US already has laws requiring reporting of criminal and mental health records to NICS, but compliance is patchy. There's also more recent laws making firearm purchases illegal if you have a domestic violence history, even at misdemeanor level. At least one of the most recent shooters had a domestic violence hx and should not have been allowed to buy guns for that reason alone. Compare to NZ where some gun owners consider Police to be over-zealous in their checking, even to the point that the High Court struck down one of the Police requirements. But it seems to me you want authorities to be overzealous rather than slack. I see some congresspeople now proposing incentives for states to improve their compliance with existing law. Incentives?! They need to be shamed for failing to do so. If people want to march, march about that.

The other US issue is mental health. By definition a mass shooter will have a mental health disorder, so please ignore insistence that there's no connection. What's important is that NICS reporting only includes those involuntarily committed to psychiatric care. Obama's executive order grew this to include anybody on a benefit who needs assistance with social security paperwork because of mental issues. Neither of these would have caught the most recent shooter who had been behaving erratically and had received mental health care. Seems to me that Congress (rather than POTUS via a fragile/legally questionable executive order) needs to widen the reporting opportunities wrt erratic or resentful people- especially somebody who publicly posts their intentions, as Cruz did.

>>You mentioned that in NZ these rifles are used (legally) exclusively for hunting, whereas here most would say it's the 2nd Amendment.

Not exclusively- you asked for a civilian use, and that's one.

>>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.

I want it for hunting on a little range I lease just outside Indianapolis. Prove otherwise.

>>This laissez-faire attitude when it comes to guns is not helping anyone, including the responsible gun owners.

All I can say is that while things may seem obvious, the animal is always right. Meaning observed behavior always trumps the most logical theory. In this case, despite all the demonizations and recriminations, the US has imposed a federal assault rifle ban before- the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB).that expired in 2004, with consensus being that any resulting reduction in crime is too small to measure. Seems to me the MSM ought to be presenting this alongside every sensational demand for AWB that the media covers. The public is more than capable of digesting such information and if the definition of insanity is to repeat the same behavior expecting a different result- then the public is being pushed to behave insanely.

I'd also observe that 200 people died in mass shootings since the 1960s. Compared to more than 200 killed every quarter in Chicago alone. I'd go for the Chicago phenomenon that's easier to visibly reduce which success draws more support and impetus for greater change. Do the AWB first and IMHO you risk another failure and loss of appetite for gun control. JMHO.

>>More importantly, Congress needs to make it, and keep at as a priority until solutions are found.

Yes. I hope Trump thrashes them along as he's doing re DACA. And the MSM as one of the pillars of democracy needs to be balancing its sensational pieces about marchers angrily demanding Trump somehow imposes an AWB, with easy historical facts that ought to be part of the democratic process.