a way to predict who will cause gun violence and be proactive before hand. I think it is not going to reduce gun violence. The people who kill and injure with guns most likely would pass all your restrictions.
In my opinion we have two choices. Live with the violence or get rid of guns. We are not going to stop gun violence with more rules.

I disagree completely. Properly enacted and enforced, like automobile licensing, insuring, etc., these measures damn sure would make a difference. Eliminate gun violence? No. Make an enormous difference? Yes. See France, Japan, Australia, UK, Netherlands, etc. for different degrees and methods of control, and then look at their gun violence rates.

mc

Not all shootings, but many.

traffic laws will eliminate speeding, running red lights or illegal parking.

I, for one, like traffic laws. They make the commute to work a lot less exciting. I don't need more excitement on the way to the grocery store. I'm good with traffic laws that aren't 100% affective.

I'm good with all the proposals in the OP. I've been background checked by everybody below AG Holder and the local animal control officer. I have to keep records of what i buy by source, serial number and disposition. Should i sell a gun i must have proof that the buyer is a resident of my state and has shown me proof of that. It isn't a hardship.

The argument that a regulation cannot be 100% affective is fallacious and not worthy of addressing.

To get the license you would have a background check, but after that all you would have to do is produce the license. If you rent a car you produce a license, etc. Cuts down on a lot of repeated checking.

If you don't have a license, no sale.

Which is why I had all those checks. It was a one time event and it took three months. As I said, it wasn't a hardship.

The reason we have a National Instant Criminal System is that the original legislation called for a three day waiting period and a local law enforcement background check. The NRA want apoplectic over the involvement of local law enforcement and the terrible hardship of waiting three whole days for a new gun. The NICS is a compromise.

I think all gun buyers should go through what I did as a minimum and be required to keep the same records I do and be required to have, and use, a suitable gun safe.

I think if you have a gun in your possession, you need a license. I have a gun safe - had one for years. Even in the 1950's my father had a locking gun cabinet.

NCIS doesn't have any way to know if you are a crazy college student about to go on a rampage or if you are suicidal. Chances are there's a psychologist or counselor or relative who knows if you are unstable, but it's not reported. That's why people need to have an interview of some kind. It won't catch everyone, but it will find out the obviously dangerous people.

The programs outlined in Sancho's OP would dramatically reduce violence involving guns, and I think that is a worthwhile and realistic goal.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/pregnant-woman-dies-after-accidentally-being-shot-in-head/2190285

She was shot in the head Saturday evening while being shown a gun at a friend's house in Brooksville, authorities said.

She and her husband, Carson Hoover, had gone to visit friends at 20079 Suncrest Drive in northwest Brooksville, just outside the city limits.

Sometime around 6:45 p.m. inside the house, William DeHayes was showing the Hoovers some of his guns, including a .22-caliber revolver. The gun accidentally fired and shot Katherine Hoover in the head, according to the Hernando County Sheriff's Office.

From Eric Holder's Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Firearm homicides have fallen 39% from 1993 to 2011.
Gun deaths are falling without the licensing mania you have suggested.

At any rate, correlation doesn't imply causality, so that report isn't relevant to the argument.

There is no licensing mania except for the current stupidity.

The current "permit" system doesn't identify dangerous people - that's clear. But just to see what you know, how about answering a question or two.

Would you let a five year old have an automatic weapon and take it to school loaded?
Would you let someone known to be emotionally unstable who had openly threatened others with violence possess any gun that they wished?

Exactly HOW would you protect yourself and the public? At some point there have to be rules. My rules don't restrict ANY particular type of gun (it only deals with people). My rules don't require ANY point-of-sale background check (just show a valid license). My "mania" is less complex and more effective that any other system in place today.

Either put up or shut up! What system do you propose? Don't tell me what's wrong with my idea of screening dangerous people - tell me what you would do! Go for it or be gone.

Just wondering? I shoot percussion revolvers, that are reproductions of civil war era guns. They are not classified as firearms and can be bought and shipped thru the mail with no restriction other than signing a statement of proof of age.

These pistols are widely viewed as hobby related and are not considered by law enforcement to be a threat to public safety. Should they be included with firearms in a general licensing? Jay

The idea is to prevent unstable people and criminals from having easy access to weapons that kill. If you can buy black powder for muzzle loaders, then someone else could use it for a bomb. You could have as many hobby guns as you want. If you want ammo or powder or permission to enter a shooting range or civil war reenactment; you would show a license.

If you have a license, you show it, buy what you want and head out. Online you would have to enter a proof of a license. The person who is NOT SAFE to possess weapons would be turned away at the counter. No background check at the store is necessary if you have a license in your pocket.

I don't make a distinction about types of guns, or even if you "own" the gun. To participate in public shooting, to buy guns or ammo (including powder), or to transport a gun you simply show a license. That is not foolproof, but it makes it harder for people who are unstable, criminal, or untrained to possess and use guns.

It's one way to easily prevent some of the obvious shootings that we see every day.

Yeah, I see what you mean. The blackpowder itself would be a problem, good point.

Sancho, You and I are rare birds in this forest. A couple of libs that actually know a little about guns. Not often seen in these parts.
Nothing you say in your licensing plan is unreasonable. Its really just a good common sense solution to gun violence.

The problem I find with your solution is that we, as a nation, passed the off ramp to common sense gun control quite a while back. Now we are on a wide, straight, fast freeway to ever more gun ownership by individuals that are less and less equipped to handle them in a responsible manner.

My solution? I give up! attempts at gun control in California (were I live) amount to throwing gas on a fire. Gun and ammo sales here are explosive. Lines to get into gunshows are 3 and 4 blocks long. the magazine rack at the supermarket used to have about 3 different
gun related mags, now there is 12 or 14 ! And they are much more combat/battle related. What happened Sancho?It seems Our little hobby has been invaded by the doomsday guys! Jay

guns shows are massive.

People here get carry permits who are off-the-charts. Some have history of violence or emotional illness. Most don't plan to hunt - they just like the idea of carrying a high powered pistol to MacDonalds and the gas station. It makes no sense.

I assume that virtually no one is denied a permit during the training class, judging from the stupid things people do with their guns.

I'm sure there is no way to get a license law in Florida right now, but it took decades to get DUI laws on the books, so we'll see. Maybe not in my lifetime.