Sorry, I should have said injuries. Either way, wouldn't you agree that the more you have of something, anything, the more likely that someone will get hurt or die from it?

Yeah I agree with that and that's what the graph shows. What puzzles me though is that the US has a much larger ratio of intentional firearms death/gun ownership than all the other countries listed. What makes America so trigger-happy?

Gangs. Drug Dealers. Suicide.

That'd take care of a large portion of the shootings. Most are either gang, drug, or suicide related.

Instead of stupid extreme solutions like letting anybody have a gun or forbidding everybody, why not doing very accurate psychiatric evaluation before granting a gun license? And periodically repeating the evaluation to be reasonably sure psychic condition of a previously authorized person didn't change for the worse?

 1 reason really.  A psyciatric test isn't like a blood test... you'd get 1 of 2 results.

1) Unethical psychologists would charge higher rates and claim anyone was sane enough to own a gun.  There is no real way to prove that these guys were doing it on purpose.

2) The government would hire the psychologists and you had to go to a government psychologist.  This could lead to a "Stamp act" type end around causing prohibition.  "No one sane would want to own a gun."'

I would say the better solution is tightening up requirements at gun dealerships to ensure that those purchasing guns get the proper background checks, and that everything is above board.

Your correct in saying you need a moderated solution: Ensure only responsible people have guns. However, the issue is that both sides have different definitions of 'responsible'.

^^
A working compromise between inelasticity and laxness can be reached.
@Kasz216: driving licenses are an established and accepted thing and dishonest examiners exist, but they are a minority. And I didn't write psychologists, but psychiatrists, that are doctors, and so are subject to one of the most stringent codes of conduct and to maybe the longer lasting course of study and qualifying period.

Edit: again, a few dishonest and/or inept doctors exist, but we don't stop curing ourselves for this. If we accept only ideal, perfect solutions, we won't ever do anything, as there's no hope to get them. If we accept a compromise, making harder to a madman to get guns, we can reduce the problem and still let honest and sane people defend themselves when really needed.

They really aren't in my expierence... as far as psychologists and psyciatrists go.  I mean you should see how many people get missdiagnosed just because there is more money in putting a kid on ritaline etc.

I almost was a psychologist/psyciatrist... the limits of what people don't know are scary.

Also it ignores one of the bigger problems we have currently.

Dupes.

Basically a gang member or whatever will find a guy with no criminal record and gets that guy to buy a bunch of guns.

I think what we need instead is something more like this....

1) You are responsible for any crime committed with your gun unless you report it stolen or can give a proper alibi as to why you didn't report it stolen.

2) Guns sold from one person to the next need to be proved by a notary or some such official office, that incudes a background check.  Aka gunshow laws tightneed up.

3) Perhaps something like fingerprints needed to buy a gun to prevent identity theft for people buying guns to prevent 1.

That way the "dupe" plan can't work.

^^
I don't dislike your solutions, although they are more aimed against crooks than madmen.
Also, keep in mind that we see the problem in different contexts: here in Italy weapons are strongly regulated and instead of stringent medical examination, there is a strong discretionary power of prefects, the highest local officials of the Ministry of Interiors, so shifting the criteria more towards medical ones, surely not mathematically precise, but more objective anyway than political ones, would grant honest and sane people more self defense rights than now.

The crimes of Madmen really aren't a huge problem.  They're very very small tradgedies that get made up to be huge prevelent problems simply because of the media.

Really this combined with Watchmen makes me wonder though...

Why is it always Republicans who outlaw superheros? 

I mean wouldn't the NRA be like... the biggest supporter of Captain America and Batman and the like?  With anti-gun democrats being the most for Superhero Legislation and the Keane act?

Well... I mean I know why it's always republicans... it's because a majority of comic book writers are democrats... but i mean.  It's kinda ironic really.