The photo at the top of this article is prejudicial - it depicts military weapons - most likely fully automatic (machine guns), and their bayonets! I would not believe the results of this question regardless of which was they lean because of the emotion engendered by such a display

Not that it has any realistic chance , but there should be no lifetime licenses for anything .

Radiogeek's comment is right on! The point of discussion needs to be kept crystal clear: this is about licensing, administration (& fees). Full stop.

I think the message that speaks to me most is this article is the correlation between MA being among the states having the strictest gun control laws in the US and MA also having the lowest gun death rate in the nation. I would like to remain the lowest and think that we should not change the 6-year generous time-frame between renewals. If the process is bottle-necking, increase the permitting fees slightly to cover the cost of additional help.

Strict gun control laws will only prevent law abiding citizens from defending themselves if necessary. The criminals don't follow or adhere to the laws.

If you have any type of record (traffic violations) the cops can shoot down your permit request. If the cops don't like you for whatever reason (lets say you are going out with a cops ex girlfriend) your permit could get a denial. If you know someone, it helps. Massachusetts has made it such a pain that many people keep unregistered guns and they don't have a license.

I don't have a problem necessarily with the 6 year renewal requirement. The problem (from what I've heard) is that the state doesn't send renewal notices like they do for vehicle registries, etc. It's like they purposely want you to forget to renew. But the bigger problems I have is the issue as Paul above mentioned....and cops being allowed to take your guns for any type of minor violation that's unrelated to not being a responsible gun owner.

Licenses should only be awarded to those who can pass a citizenship test and paint a realistic likeness of a gun in under 30 minutes, with technical proficiency.

Karla: You suggest that lifetime permits would make life easier for harried cops. Does that mean police departments support lifetime permits? I would be surprised if that were so.

The amount of power and jurisdiction each police chief has is strange itself. If a chief wants to tell you that your ltc permit is only valid if you're eating an ice cream cone, they are protected to enforce that. Either way there need to be some streamlined universal laws state by state or federally.

I think we're missing the elephant in the room. It's not simply an issue of law-abiding citizens having guns but also the physical and mental health of gun owners. If you're a law-abiding citizen and get Lyme disease, for example, you may end up with what's been termed "Lyme rage." Something in your day triggers the "Lyme rage," and the nice, law-abiding citizen who owns a gun may become a menace to him/herself and the community. A range of mental illnesses, perhaps not present when the law-abiding gun owner first gets a license, may also contribute to gun violence. In addition, we know that prescription drugs can and do set people off. Alzheimer's? What happens when a law-abiding citizen who has a gun starts to forget what a gun is and how to use it safely? I recognize that HIPAA makes this difficult, but there needs to be far more involvement by the medical community on the issue of whether it's safe for someone to have a gun. That is, of course, if we value human life.

Carol, so you think the cops should be able to access your medical records for a gun permit? Sounds like a violation of doctor/patient privilege. And if you let them check your medical records for one thing they will end up checking every ones records for everything. Who checks the cops records? Do they have a waiting period or is it head of the line for police?

I carry a firearm every day. If something is going to happen I won't get to choose the place or time. Like the Boy Scouts say, "being prepared" is all I can do. Remember doctors kill more people accidentially each year than guns. Also remember "guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donald fat.

Carol the price and functions of medical treatment is so high and disputed, the last thing we need is to federally regulate that physicians weigh in on every gun owners mental state as well as an individuals right to drive. These are very expensive near impossible suggestions to implement and accurately and responsibly dictate, although I do respect thinking outside the box.

I understand that point but wouldn't a doctor maybe have to decide that anybody that comes in with injuries from a DUI or maybe a patient with a pacemaker installed could be a danger on the road? I just think it opens up a lot of questions as to who is deemed unsafe and what the legal reprocussions would be on such objective decisions.

I will say this Carol, if I wanted a non legal gun, drugs or any other weapon, I'm fairly certain I could obtain those items rather easily and I surround myself with good responsible friends. There are too many ways to get guns and to be honest the legal way may be the longest, most expensive and most difficult. I also think if you chose almost anyone in the U.S. and pinned a murder on them you could probably connect dots to some stressful times, family situations, work issues, money problems etc and call them all indicators.

I could call a friend in another state and have him purchase a handgun for me at around 500 bucks. I would have the weapon in my safe within days. Or....spend that 500 here in MA just for the licensing and safety course. Then hope the chief doesn't have a problem with my haircut in 4 months when my license app gets looked at. If I do get a license by some miracle. I have to go out and spend another 700 for that same weapon in MA due to the costs of doing business in that arena for dealers. Is that efficient? People tend to discount the brilliance of the second amendment in this state. I want safe streets like everyone else but it should not be a viable option to break the law to in order to protect your home when the cops aren't in sight. Nobody wants criminals to have weapons....but you have to admit their procurement of their weapons is a hell of a lot more efficient than those who play by the rules.

Besides...how am i going to protect my newly legal medical marijuana crop without my semi auto .222 high powered assault weapon with laser sights and night vision scopes???!!!

I've never touched or held a gun in my life. I don't see the need and if you walk around every day with a gun (or any other weapon) out of some paranoid belief that "something might happen" then I feel horrible for you (it must be an awful way to live) and the people around you (it must be an awful way to live). But if you want one, fine, go ahead, it's America last I checked.

The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Massachusetts has become too strick thereby making it so that only "criminals" will have guns. If the common person were allowed to possess a firearm, after proper training and not displaying a criminal records for violence or mental incapacity people would feel much safer in their homes. Massachusetts seems to ignore the 2nd Amendment.

Anything can be used for good or bad purposes.
A gun, a car, a knife, a baseball bat, fists, a pencil.
Passing laws against the object instead of the action sets a very bad precedence and leads one down the path to think that it is the object that is the problem and not the action of the individual!
Some objects and the use of such should be regulated for the common good and every effort should be made to ensure that these things are used only by qualified persons and for proper purposes.
Officials tend to pass laws and regulations against objects rather than actions simply because objects are easier to regulate than the actions of people. Especially criminal type people! Secondarily, passing laws aimed at mainly at law abiding citizens is favored by those in power for two reasons. 1) It gets them closer to being able to prosecute anyone for anything at any time and 2) It deflects attention from their inability to effectively deal with the growing criminal element in our society.
BUT, to delude oneself that laws against particular objects and the ownership thereof will protect us from actions of nefarious individuals who generally disregard laws to begin with is...well,stupid.

Ronda this is only the beginning...in 4 years the Constitution will be re-written if they have their way

Taking away the Second amendment or creating yet more gun laws will not stop anyone from getting a gun illegally.

Mark, I'm liberal and I get it. Do you get that liberals don't want anything explained to them, just like conservatives?

If Massachusetts can license a civil right like the second amendment; how about a license for the 1st amendment? A full background check, the required education, mental health evaluation, letters of recommendation and a 7 day waiting period should be performed before you could post on blogs, give speeches, etc. It is a little scary when you think of what could happen.

I'm hopein' and thinkin' that the Constitution is pretty much etched in stone and can't be changed because someone doesn't like it....Amending yes...total removal of an amendment from the original writings...NO WAY!!!

Yeah look what Obama did in Michigan 2 days ago - ignited the unions and now they are an angry mob...he will stop at nothing for his agenda...sorry nothing to do with gun control

Sorry Indiana but Obama is against the right to work measure. Is that just what you assume since I'm sure you do not like Obama?

just got to people how to dodge bullets better and we'll be all set. Here's the take of fox gnus

http://www.upworthy.com/fox-pundit-tells-silly-abused-ladies-to-stop-getting-in-way-of-bullets-and-stuff?c=upw1

If we lived in a more responsible society I would say that the laws should be retooled. However for the majority of the population things like personal responsibility are an afterthought in the constant pursuit of instant gratification. So I'm with Carol on creating ways to ensure that the gun owner is actually sane and responsible. I have no issue with having the applicant produce a note from their physician stating that they are of sound mind and body.

However, if a person is found to be sufficiently qualified to own a weapon, than the licensing process should be uniform and it should not cost them a small fortune. If a person wants a simple weapon like a pistol or a shotgun for the purpose of defending their home, than the cost for a license should be minimal, $100 every six years is a bit much.

You simply cannot have a doctor, nor would they, provide a note or recommendation for a sane individual to posess a firearm. What happens when that individual does Hirt someone with that gun? That doctors credibility is shot so to speak and I'm sure there would be lawsuits from any victims or their families.

*hurt

Conservatives that say Obama or the 'Left' are going to take away your guns, make me laugh. I can't believe some people are so paranoid. If you really think that's true, drive to South Providence and load up on whatever kind of automatic weapons you think you may need to survive the nuclear winter.

Unfortunately, we will need armed personnel at our schools. That monster would not have killed so many children if a legally armed and trained staff member (retired cop or security professional) was in the school. Law abiding citizens must be able to arm and protect themselves and the vulnerable.

Unfortunately, legally armed and trained staff members (retired cop or security professional) sometimes suffer from mental illness. This simply makes the case for far more involvement by the medical community in issues like who is mentally competent to have a gun or to drive an automobile.

And for any out there who may regard themselves as Christians, do remember Christ's directive to put up the sword and please entertain the possibility that if we were to come together across ideological lines we might find other ways of addressing what has clearly become a national crisis. Most nations in the world don't experience the level of violence we do here in the U.S. We need to take a good look at ourselves and ask why this is happening.

Frankly, if I still had a school-age child, I'd prefer not to have trained staff members shooting lethal weapons in my child's school. There are other weapons, including some creative ones now being tested, that can render an assailant incapable of shooting a gun or rifle and would pose less of a danger to innocent bystanders.

Michael: There's a gender dimension that we're not addressing. These shootings almost always involve males. I've come to understand that there's a serious global problem that I would describe as male oppression. I don't have time to go into this right now, but from a very young age boys are told that they are not to be fully human. They can't shed tears, they can only express anger. They are at all times to be strong and never display weakness. The expectations are enormous and the potential for failing to meet these expectations equally enormous. A chronic sense of failure manifests itself through mental instability. Repressed emotions can lead to aggressive behavior. It's a hard conclusion for a feminist to reach, but I've come to believe that the oppression of women cannot be ended without ending the oppression of men. A successful approach to the problems of violence will be multi-disciplinary.

The mentally of some people. I need to have a gun to protect myself, when in reality, your allowing someone in your own family to take that gun & either kill you, himself or others in the community. What's the purpose of Mrs Lanza owning these guns in her home? To protect herself? In then end, they did her no good. I'm not against those who want guns for hunting, but I am oppose for those who want to own a gun, just so they can protect themselves & their family. There is no need. We also need to look at the bigger picture here, is TV, Video games, Family time to blame? Does this play a major role in our children's lives. Parents divorced, kids home alone to fend for themselves, no punishment if a child doesn't get what he/she wants. No family time, no sit down home cook meals, the list is endless. We can't change the past, but we can certainly change our futures. As far as Massachusetts gun laws, Yes they should keep it to where you need to renew your licences, but impose to take refresher classes on gun safety, storage & such. Shame on you if you wait until the last minute to renew you gun license, just like a drivers license, you need to check & get it done way before it expires.
As far as having security at the schools, yes, there should be a police officer/security guard at every school.