Australia is a go-to case when mass shootings were common, gun regulation was enacted, and they haven't had a mass shooting since 1996. There are other examples around the world.
I agree, but that's not something that's going to happen. Gun regulation can happen.
Yes, but mass death will be minimized with gun regulation. A knife doesn't typically account for 50 deaths at a time. Guns are definitely an issue, but I'm not saying they're the only issue. It's also an easy issue and the bare minimum we can do.
As we've gone over before, someone's freedoms are going to be violated regardless of what we choose to do. I value the freedom to not die in a mass shooting over the freedom of some people to have automatic rifles for recreation. Some people are going to want to have their automatic rifles, but I don't personally care. I don't have any authority except logic behind me. With regard to the usefulness of a gun, someone once said that a person who uses an automatic rifle to hunt, for example, probably isn't a very good hunter. We regulate weapons of mass destruction all the time. I don't believe certain types of guns are any exception just because more people want them for recreational reasons.
We've had AR bans in the United States that reduced mass shootings for a time, and other countries have had similar bans with success. As for high-capacity magazines, there is a strong correlation between fewer rounds and fewer deaths in a shooting. The 2011 Tucson shooting, for example, was as deadly as it was because the high capacity of the rounds (33, if I remember correctly), and it only wasn't worse because of the shooter had to stop to reload. The more a shooter has to stop to reload in a shooting, the statistically fewer deaths.
I'm not saying this wouldn't help in any way, but for most of the victims of mass shootings, I don't think familiarization with guns would have saved them. The issue isn't fear of guns; it's wanting practical reform that minimizes mass shootings.