Kirby just because it is your idea does definitely not make it common sense. Taking guns off honest citizens has absolutely no effect on the nutters or the criminals.

As for training, as a 16 year old kid underofficer of school cadets, & was in charge of a platoon of 30 kids I had trained in the safe use of WW11 303 rifles, when shooting on the rifle range.

When not more than a kid I was given a fighter aircraft, armed with 4 machine guns, & 8 rockets to use to defend my country if required.

When not much older I was trained as the officer of the watch, & given charge of a Daring class destroyer, armed with 6 of 4.5" guns capable of sinking quite large ships.

I along with many ex service men take offence when told we should go & be trained in handling a gun by some civilian.

I need more than a .410 Individual. In the wisdom of people like Kirby, & ridiculous council bylaws, I have to keep my dog locked up at night. Thus he can not defend my young stock from the packs of wild dogs that regularly roam most country areas. Pity the council don't keep them locked up. I need a rifle with a very good scope, capable of taking out a dog at 200 metres if I am to protect a young foal.

I have been lucky, & have not had to put a round through a rifle in almost 3 years, some of my neighbours not so. One lost 2 sheep & an alpaca a few months back. He got one of those herd guard dogs that live with the stock, but was told he has to lock it up at night too. The sheep & alpaca now spend the night in the house paddock with the dogs. It is murder on his wife's roses, but the stock are safe.

God I get sick of city folk, with no idea of which way is up, thinking they have the answer to everything.

To Is Mise. You asked earlier:

"What do you mean by military grade weapons. What would you do about sporting firearms that are adopted by the military because they are superior to military weapons?"

I don't know where to draw the line but a line should be drawn. Perhaps military grade weapons is the wrong term, nonetheless one issue is rapid firing weapons with large clips and magazines of ammo. The debate for and against gun use and gun rights ranges beyond mass shootings.

From stats saying gun ownership is the biggest threat for families and accidental shootings (being a bigger population harmed then mass shootings), one side largely from city dwellers is a ban on all guns. The other side of the arguments is for hunters and those living in the country far from the city, where they should be able to protect themselves and their property. Both sides of the debate have merit in where they come from regardless of their conclusions for trying to ban guns, or to support guns.

That said, there is the middle ground where reality lives in the US. If the whole country isn't going to ban guns then that only puts an increased danger in the areas that have put restrictions on guns. (Because someone can easily obtain a gun somewhere else then move to those areas to either have their own gun illegally, or to sell them to criminals who will have no resistance from the harm they give). Anything less then a nation wide gun ban that harms those in the country only adds to the ability for continued mass shootings.

With that in mind one easy answer is to limit the power of the guns. There is no reason to have a high powered rifle that can shoot quickly and has a lot of ammo. Not for protection, nor for hunting. The only reason for it would be for gaining an advantage in urban warfare or in mass shooting. Neither reason should be encouraged. (Sporting firearms is no excuse in light of the problems that have terrorized the US).

To Kirby.

There is one thought on education that your overlooking. Instead of educating people on the harms of guns as a means to overcome the debate and indoctrinate the anti gun stance, gun education can happen as a nation wide program on gun safety and gun use.

Such a class will have the opposite effect as your idea of education through the media, because it will increase the gun sales and use with an informed population on how to handle a gun.

None the less the lack of education on gun safety and use creates a problem of people getting guns that don't know how to use them, and don't respect them enough to practice safe use. With a better education on guns it may even cause fewer people to use guns as a means to vent their frustrations in a mass shooting.

So with that in mind I agree to the idea of gun education. Just not the education you meant through media campaigns.

Must disagree with the people are the reason gun murders take place
Yes true of America but not in other western countries
America Isn't the United country it claims to be, has never been
The murderers are full of hate for other Americans'
Americas problem is America

Hasbeen,
Of course in your situation a .410 would only result in vermin laughing at you. Its all a matter of need in particular situations. That's what the Gits will never comprehend.
I would love to show some of them around in country with no phone signal, no street signs, no takeaways, no disco etc. An hour with the sandflies would have them screaming & pleading for a gun !

Not_Now.Soon,

There are bolt action rifles that can be fired faster than some semi-automatics and the humble double barrel rifle or shotgun can fire very rapidly.

As for magazines, the difference in rapidity of fire between a 10 shot and a 20 shot is the two seconds, or less, that it takes to change magazines.