I am not in favor of guns carried outside the home, but I am in favor of the US Constitution and the legislative and judicial system which interprets it.

That said -- mass shootings are a tiny fraction of all shootings in the USA. And the real question should be: if you take away the guns, do MURDERS and ASSAULTS go down significantly, or only the gun murders and assaults? I keep hearing about the latter, from gun control activists. However, in China and Britain, there have been a spate of knife attacks in which perpetrators somehow (how?? I can't understand it) also killed and wounded many people. If murders don't go down then why bother going door to door to confiscate guns in an era where people are able to 3d print their own?

I have an unpopular opinion: Every citizen of the US should be trained in public school on how to use a gun and basic gun safety/cleaning. Upon completion of the course the citizen shall be given a firearm. It's amazing how the leftists are so sure sex ed prevents unwanted pregnancies and STD's, but when it comes to guns they take the abstinence only approach.

Speaking as a generally pacifist observer from Australia (frequently cited as an example of how reaction to a mass shooting resulted in a change to stricter gun ownership laws, introduced by a conservative government no less)... Is there sufficient desire across the population for reduced gun ownership that a general strike would force some political action despite the involvement of the NRA, or is that a socialist fantasy?

Another article regarding the same topic from Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/mass-shootings-study-us-2015-144845714...

Tl;dr We have a lot of guns