I think all the ones I didnt cross over would work well.
1. That's illegal.
4. If it's a free evaluation sure but if not then it's a bad idea because it just puts a burden on poor gun owners.
6. There's no need for this.
9. Depends on the crime. Criminals should not be treated like 2nd class citizens because of their past mistakes. They've served their time and should be allowed to fully integrate and that includes owning a gun if they want.
10/11. If someone illegally owns a guns or sold one but have shown no intention to harm someone or has not harmed someone with it they should be punished but to a lesser extent.
12. If the authorities are taking away a private belonging the person should be able to fight/question it. And this would probably be illegal and possibly unconstitutional.
1. How is that illegal? Aren't there also voter registries and a registry of licensed drivers?
4. Some hobbies cost money, there is no reason why a dangerous hobby like playing with guns shouldn't be expensive and heavily regulated. The freedom of owning a cheap gun does not trump the freedom of not getting shot. Without trying to sound bigoted, poor people are the last people I would like to make it easier for to own guns.
6. Correct. the limit should be 2.
9. Depends on the crime. If it was a violent crime, not having the right to own a gun anymore seems like a good idea. Call it extra punishment for being an asshole.
10./11. It is fair to assume that if someone is willing to break the law by owning an illegal firearm, he's also willing to break the law otherwise. For example by using the gun inappropriately.
If I believe gun owners correctly, they will only use their firearms for sport, which makes it a hobby. There are no special protections for hobbies. Owning a weapon designed for mass killing isn't a right, it's a privilege and people should pay for that privilege like every other person for their hobbies. At this point fucking drones are more regulated than guns.
A colleague of mine is a fan of guns and he uses them for sport. I'm pretty sure here in Germany all of these policies are in effect and that is absolutely fine. Fans of guns will jump these hoops for their hobby and everyone else will feel a lot safer.
What is your logic to the proper amount of guns being 2? Most people who own guns own more than 2 for a reason.
I own a shotgun for deer hunting (regular season does not allow rifles south of a specific line in our state).
I own a 223 rifle that I've used largely for fun range shooting, as well as prairie dog hunting (impossible with a shotgun as you need to be 200-300+ yards away)
I own a 22 rifle that I've used a LOT for small game hunting. Neither the 223 or the shotgun are reasonable for these methods of hunting. The 223 would make the entire squirrel/small animal explode. The shotgun doesn't have near the accuracy required for this type of hunting.
I also own a muzzleloader, as there is a late deer season where this is the only type of gun allowed. It's intended to be very difficult as you get only 1 shot.
I've taken gun safety courses (as all hunters in the state have), all of my guns have required a background check. This doesn't even mention that the majority of mass shootings could easily have occurred even if each person only had 1 gun.