New Gun Regulations In The US Would Be Really, Really Stupid

[EgoDeath]

1.  30 would allow more time for background checks.  It would reduce the number of purchasers who 'fall through the cracks' by allowing for more thorough investigations.  It would be enforced by whichever agencies enforce the current 2-7 day wait.  Yes, businesses could delay sales for 30 days.

Okay, so why 30 days? Why not 90? What exactly makes you think purchasers "fall through the cracks?" So you're now asking that the ATF, FBI etc change their policies; certainly this is not an easy task. And in asking businesses to delay their sales by a month you're affecting their bottom line. Now you can say you don't care about their bottom lines, but you would if you were the owner of a gun shop.

Not to mention, this 30 day waiting period will likely do little to nothing. People who shoot up schools and commit crazy crimes like this are often individuals with no criminal record or officially documented history of mental illness. Sometimes they are, but even then, you can't stop someone from getting a gun if they really want one. Guns aren't that hard to find on the street and are often cheaper than going through a legal dealer.

2.  No, one disgruntled interviewee would not stop you from getting a gun, as a negative report would be further investigated.  The interviews would be conducted by local police.

How do you know that? Also, where is this funding going to come from for police to be going around every day of the week conducting interviews?

3.  Licensing could be managed by any agency which already manages government-issued licenses (hunting, fishing, driving).  It would allow law enforcement to more easily identify suspects in a gun crime.

Which agency? The people who handle driving licenses are not the same people who handle fishing and game licenses.

4.  The safety classes would be offered either by local law enforcement or by accredited private providers.  It would be paid for by the license holders.

Once again, where does the funding come from? And who are these "accredited private providers?"

5.  Into general revenue.  If you prefer, it could be tagged specifically to help meet the operating costs of the issuing agencies.

General revenue for who?

6.  Fair point, I should have been clearer.  Infractions would need to be gun-related in order to affect your licensing privileges - having an unsecured firearm, transporting a loaded firearm, failure to meet ongoing safety requirements, shooting the bloke who cut you off in traffic, that sort of thing.

You CAN lose your right to own a firearm for several different offenses. This is already a thing. I have a friend who lost his CCW permit for illegally transporting a firearm.

7.  Of course you can sell a gun to your brother or you father.  You could even sell one to your old granny.  It would just take a little longer.

Okay. But why? Why should the government have any business in me wanting to sell a gun to my father?

With a few exceptions, the above are largely the state of gun control measures where I live. A few (such as recertification every two years) are  things I think would be an improvement.  I also left out a few which I think are needlessly intrusive.

And I agree that certain measures should be taken, I'm just not so sure the things you've mentioned really make a whole lot of sense when you actually think them through.

So yes, it has been thought through.  And it works.

You say this, and yet I'm not convinced you have thought it through. I'm also not convinced that it works. I think our culture is very different here in the US, unfortunately.

Based on population, New Zealand has a quarter as many privately owned firearms as the US, and a twelfth as many firearm-related deaths (barring the recent massacre).

The recent massacre certainly counts, does it not? And what is your point?

Boru

edit:  I found this, referencing your reply to point 7:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRI3ujxOa6Y

Boru

I have great doubts about that video depicting any real life situation. Looks heavily edited and I suspect it was a contrived situation used to prove a point. Can you find if anyone was charged in that situation for selling a gun to a 13 year old? Certainly someone must have been arrested if this crime was so easily caught on camera?

Also, even if it IS true. It's almost as if criminals don't care about gun laws and choose to do illegal shit anyway. Imagine that.