OK. I've said this before. License gun shooters, not gun owners.

[trof]

You have to have a license to drive (car and boat in most states), fly, fish, hunt, etc.

Having a driver's license doesn't mean you have to own a car.
Maybe you just rent one once in a while.
Same for boats.

A hunting license doesn't mean you own a gun.
A fishing license doesn't mean you own a rod and reel or even a cane pole.
And of course a flying license doesn't mean you own an airplane.

For many of these licenses you have to demonstrate a certain degree of knowledge about the related activity.

Why not for guns?
At the very least you take a written test demonstrating your knowledge of gun handling and safe shooting practices.
And pass a background check that shows you're not a felon or have a previous record of violent behavior.
(OK, this wouldn't have helped in the Aurora case.)

Better would be passing a course with a certified instructor.
But that might be too much to ask for, at least right now.

So...no gun registration.
"THEY" are not gonna take your guns away NRA.
But to fire a gun you need a license.

Yeah, I know.
Good luck with that.

[LonePirate]

1. I say give it a try. Any and all solutions are worth considering.

[Robb]

2. I've always liked this notion.

Also, nice to see you.

[trof]

3. Hey Dingbat.

Nice to see you too.

[IggleDoer]

4. How bout an insurance mandate (tax)

You shoot someone - you pay in advance base on your personal risk of shooting off your firearms.

Insurance underwriters can develop a fee schedule based on your likelihood to use it inappropriately. Administer personality tests, etc.

This would not infringe on the "right to bear arms.". Only on your accepting responsibility for your actions.

[NashvilleLefty]

5. Well, it's safe to assume that if you own a gun you plan on shooting it.

That being said, I've always felt that licensing should include training (especially safety) and testing, just like driving. And, perhaps, the NRA and similar "pro-gun" associations could provide proper training. Of course, the State (Federal or Local) should be responsible for the testing and issuance.

So, I guess I agree with the majority of your OP.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Substitute voting for gun ownership and see how you like it

[petronius]

7. We have something like that in California - a handgun safety certificate

There's a written test to get the HSC, and you're required to go through a prescribed handling demonstration before taking possession of a handgun. (We also have registration for newly imported or purchased handguns.) I don't have a real problem with something like the HSC as long as it's purely administrative and there are no barriers other than passing a reasonable and relevant test. I.e., no discretion on the part of the issuing agency and no eligibility criteria beyond the test and the existing federal gun ownership law.

It might have some impact on accidents and some illegal acts like straw buys, but I doubt it would deter anyone actually bent on murder. I'd also like to see some basic firearm safety instruction in schools, for kids who may come across a firearm outside (or in) their own homes.

Off topic, but does your fishing license actually require any demonstration of knowledge? About the only thing ours prove is that we knew we had to buy one (and, perhaps, an acknowledgement that F&G laws actually exist...)

[madinmaryland]

8. Interesting concept, trof, and one that I like.

For true gun enthusiasts, whether it be for hunting or target shooting, shouldn't mind.