From a public health blog: Bang:

It seems to me as obvious as Monday morning that we ought to treat firearms the same way: require people to demonstrate that they understand and are capable of safe possession and operation; require that the devices have safety features; register them so that they can be identified when they are misused and confiscated if the owner proves irresponsible; and require safe use and fine people who don't follow the rules, or revoke their licenses if it comes to that. Objecting to that strikes me as insane.

It is obvious to me that the author believe that there is a rash of "accidents" caused by irresponsible people. Since this is not the case all of the suggested regulation and paperwork isn't going to correct that. It is clear that the author has no idea what laws are currently on the books, what the state of the art for safety features is, or the simple fact that criminals don't get their guns through legal channels.

When did firearms become a public health issue? They have done so well with alcoholism and drunk driving I don't think the public health system should play a wider role. I'll ask a doctor for self-defense advice right after I ask my garbage man for stock tips (actually my doctor is a expert self-defense instructor in his own right.)