I think I understand what you mean, Chaos, and I think driver's licenses, as well as the permit to buy and carry a weapon, should be subject to periodic tests to verify if the individual is still capable of handling such a thing as a car or a firearm.

I misunderstood insofar as I assumed that you meant to say that was the only prerequisite, and for that I apologize, but I stand by the rest of what I said.

I'd just like to jump in again for another 2¢.

The federal government should stay out of gun regulation. It is not a power explicitly given, and as such it should remain in the hands of the states. BUT, whatever laws or regulations states make on the matter are subject to regulation by the federal government, through the judicial system with its power to review the laws. The system worked correctly when the supreme court ruled against the D.C. blanket firearms ban. They (D.C.) unfortunately went right back to trying to be daft about it, but such is how democracy works- worst system of government aside from all the others that have been tried.

I believe Chaos is spot-on with his licensing ideas, though it would have to be handled better than driver's licenses. The waits for those are already inordinately long as it stands, and, at least in my state, there are no retests once you get the license (unless, for some reason, you don't throw them their money every seven years and thus have it expire). It also brings up the unfortunate problem of what to do once someone, through the rigors of age or fate, has lost the physical and/or mental ability to use their firearms, yet refuses to stop using them. I admit I'm at a loss as to how to handle that situation in a legal sense.

And lastly, it never hurts to include some terminology. There's nothing worse than having a huge argument over Skub, only to realize at the end that you and your opponent were actually in agreement the whole time because you had different ideas as to what Skub was.

Yes, periodic retests for sure. That would also solve your problem with the age issue, IRS. If for whatever reason you don't pass the review test (every ten years for that seems reasonable to me), and don't get your license renewed, you can't use your guns anymore unless somehow you pass it later. That doesn't mean you have to give up your guns, they can still be a collection; you just can't use them anymore.

Chaos your solution seems pretty solid. But I disagree with no registrations. It would in occasional cases make it slightly easier to find a suspect (say if they dropped their gun or whatever), and if that could help put one deserving person in jail per year then it seems worth it to me, especially when the only reason against it is "Obama might take guns away"

Privacy interests cut against your "the ends justify the means" approach, Smittens. What you describe is also an argument equally supportive of a mandatory finger print and/or DNA registry. None of those should ever come to pass in a free State.

Let's compromise: a concealed carry permit is tied to specific firearms, which must be registered so long as the license allows the owner to carry them in public. Guns not licensed for use in public (kept at home, used for hunting or at the range, and transported unloaded and locked up when en route to such uses) need not be registered.

Just like cars: the State only gets to know who owns what when the car is going to be used in public.

Yes to the above post.

Another question: Is anyone (with political weight) actually lobbying for sensible gun laws? I'm just ignorant, I think, but Google did not enlighten me (granted, I did not search for half an hour), instead it only delivered blogs and articles.

tosh. thing is, it's already like that. Theres no need to "lobby" for something that exists..

http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_al.htm
http://crime.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=crime&zu=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

also some inteesting statistics there.
"Offenders

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%"

Looks good Lecter

Eize, it obviously is not, or I completely misunderstood Lecter and Chaos. Alabama, for instance (the source you cited was referring to Alabama, so I'll take that as an example), does not require periodic evaluations, and that is one of the things I think is required the most for responsible firearm possession.

Tosh, what I described is the maximum amount of regulation I would consider reasonable. In case it has escaped your attention, states like Virginia, Alabama, Arizona, North Carolina, etc.--those with the loosest gun control laws--have the fewest numbers of gun crime incidents. They aren't the ones who need to alter their regulatory systems.

Hmm, I am more a friend of a centralised firearms regulation, but then I come from a very small country. I'm also not sure how gun crime numbers in Alabama, North Carolina or Virginia would compare to the ones in states with a high population density, taking that into account. But, I do not have numbers and am loathe to dig them up. I'll just step out of this discussion (not in anger, mind you), and leave you to it ^^

The numbers of which I speak are percentages of violent crime involving firearms, not just totals.

It may be that urban areas are still an unfair comparison for other reasons, but the fact that there is a lower per capita rate of gun crime in the most gun-friendly jurisdictions is beyond dispute.

Yea, the thing most people forget is: PER CAPITA means take the crimes, divide by population..

In which case, it doesn't -matter- what the population density is, because it's broken down to an average "per person" percentage. And time after time, places with fewer gun laws have fewer gun problems.

break19

take a look at Alaska, there you don't need a permit to carry, concealed or otherwise, why aren't they having all kinds of problems?

Guns just don't have the range. Side effect of having such a low population density. ;)

Too bad there's not a gun that can shoot all the way to Russia from Palin's window.

depends if you consider an icbm silo a gun

I totally want a self-defense ICBM. No one would ever break into my house if they thought they'd get nuked for it, right?

meh, worked for borb