>>So, in NZ MSSA weapons are illegal, unless you have a license.

No, *all* firearms are illegal unless you have a license (or are supervised by a licensee.)

>>In NZ they're available to properly vetted responsible individuals, whereas in the US they're legally available to anyone over the age of 16. I think that pretty much settles the NZ vs US argument.

Perhaps, if your premise were true... but it's not. The US 1968 Gun Control Act prohibits firearm sales to the usual categories of improper persons including "mental defectives" , felons and anybody with history of domestic violence. Since 1993 there's also Form 4473 to streamline vetting for prior convictions and other red flags for the compulsory background check conducted by licensed firearm sellers. Individual states also have added their own classes of undesirables, such as stalkers.

Also check out S2135, the "Fix NICS Act of 2017" that was added to the Omnibus bill in March and is now law. The impetus for this effort to improve compliance with NICS reporting, was the 2017 Texas Church Massacre in which the perp should not have been able to obtain the weapon he used, because of a 2012 domestic assault conviction.

Quoting Senator John Cormyn (R-TX): “For years agencies and states haven’t complied with the law, failing to upload these critical records without consequence. Just one record that’s not properly reported can lead to tragedy, as the country saw last week in Sutherland Springs, Texas.”

Clearly I'm not alone in asserting that compliance with NICS reporting obligations is so cavalier that undesirables can pass the check (as never could happen in NZ) especially if they're prepared to lie on their 4473, or are protected by clashing rules. E.g. it has been called "racist" to prosecute for lying on the 4473, which is a felony that rarely is prosecuted unless you go on to commit firearm offenses; and protection rules hid Cruz's escalating red flags so he also passed his check and was eligible to buy semi-automatic weapons, but not handguns because he's too young. If you want sensible, then lying on safety declarations ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law every time and concerns raised by schools, counselors and emergency services can't remain secret when a 16-year-old applies for a gun.

Suggestion? How about requiring referees who themselves have owned weapons for more than (say) 10 years. Cruz would have found it near impossible to find referees who knew him who would sign declarations that he would be a fit firearm holder.

>>Most are insistent on sensible gun control legislation. There is no cure-all at this point. A "ban" would be a reset from which a more sensible regulatory environment could be developed. The temporary ban that expired in 2004 was one missed opportunity.

With respect- the third sentence doesn't make a lot of sense to me and there's already legislation that has been routinely flouted... to the point where intelligent US citizens seemingly believe such laws don't even exist and are calling for them to be enacted, even marching and abusing politicians and the NRA. That's assuming that your version is accurate, because the loudest drum I can hear is for banning of "assault weapons." The problem is that educated firearm holders look at all this and conspiracy theories start that the lying (sic) about motive is just a smokescreen to disarm the citizenry of semi-automatic weapons no matter what.