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

Well, yes. There is a direct relation between concern and history of events, though if I remember correctly, in NZ there has been growing concern for preventing mass shootings, considering the number of such weapons in circulation.

>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.

I would agree. Enforcement of existing legislation needs to be taken seriously, for this effort to be effective. Also, definition of metrics is important. Otherwise, you end up with confusing or irrelevant results.
However, people will march for what's affecting them most. The families of victims, and especially the parents who lost their children will make it their life mission, and they'll move heaven and earth to see change happen. If you look at the sites setup for this purpose, you'll see that all advocate more measures for gun control. And these are the most active agents for creating awareness, and thus the most effective drivers for change. I guess it's time for Congress to think about doing something meaningful.

>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.

Definitely, mental health is one big factor. After all, it's the one of main reasons for background checks. The other big factor in mass shootings is access to assault weapons, things which were created with the primary purpose of killing people. You can't ignore either 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.

I'd believe you. But, when you're ready to get rid of it, you should ask the same question to the buyer/recipient, and then report the transaction, which should be recorded and made available to law enforcement. So, if somehow the same gun ends up in a crime scene, there should be a complete audit trail at the federal level. Right now, only licensed dealers are required to collect and maintain sales records, however these records are not collected in a central database at the federal level. Moreover, FBI is required to destroy in 24 hrs any information obtained in a background check. How reliable is a system like that?

>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.

On a site that I cited before, you could see that out of the 25 worst most mass shootings that occurred since 1984, only 3 happened during the AWB interval of 1994 - 2004, and 16 after 2004. So, the most worst mass shootings in the last 34 years happened since 2004, after the ban failed to be re-enacted. That's a statistic we can't ignore, unless it's lumped with stats of all other gun violence events.
*
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476101/worst-mass-shootings-in-the-us/
*