1. You point to the existence of certain legal restriction on gun ownership and claim that these stand for one of the most heavy type of regulation. My reply: I am not sure what's your definition of heavy regulation, but in my view these so-called regulations are designed to harass unpopular groups of people (the usual way our so-called elected 'representatives' to gain popularity), they are burdensome and completely ineffective.
I never said that the existing regulation is effective, and I would loose no sleep if it were alltogether overturned.
2. I proposed an alternative model of effective gun registration that establishes legal ownership as well as responsibilities flowing from it, rather than restricting gun ownership to certain unpopular groups (as most current laws do). That is an important distinction that I think you missed (or perhaps I did not make it clear enough).
By using car registration as an example, I wanted to point to the fact that once you are a registered owner, you are responsible for what the violations and damages involving using that vehice (the degree of that responsibility may vary from state to state). Specifically, you are liable for letting unauthorized persons using that vehicle, parking violations,as well as certain types of moving violations. The registred owner, or rather his/her insurance is, also liable for damages resulting from using the vehicle.
That responsibility reimains as long as a person remains a registered owner. The only way to discharge it is to sign off interest in the vehicle with the Motor Vehicle Administration. Under that provision, if you sell a car but do not notify the MVA - you are still responsible for the vehicle that someone else owns and uses. Nobody prevent you from buying or selling a vehicle - all you need to do is to register the actual owner.
I do not see any reason why the same principle should apply to gun ownership.
3. The same holds for licensing. Driver licensing is not designed to restrict access to automobile transportation for certain groups of people (e.g. ex-felons who used cars to get away), but to ascertain a minimum level of qualifications and responsibility that is necessary to handle a mechanical device that can produce substantial damage if operated improperly. If licensing excludes some people - it does so consequentially rather than intentionally - as a result of a person's inability or unwillingness to meet the minimum required standards. If we require such licensing for cars, I do not see any reasons why not requiring it for other potentially dangerous mechanical devices, such as guns.
4. I interpret your comments on liability insurance that you do not oppose such liability in principle, but you question the extent of cases that may be covered by such insurance. I agree that drawing a boundary between unintentional (covered) and intentional (not covered) may be tricky, but not impossible. So it is a technical issue, not the matter of principle.
5. You claim that mandatory gun training would require teaching kids how to kill. I disagree. It is not very difficult to envision a training, perhaps patterned at far-eastern martial arts, that would teach how to effectively master the weapon and, at the same time, master the art of avoiding using it unless abosolutely necessary. For example, issues such as safety, handling, target shooting aim the perfecting a skill without identifying the target as a human being. Moreover, you can add an entire "philosophy" section to your training -just like martial arts course do -- that would teach studens self control, restraint, conflict resolution, risk avoidance etc. During that part of the training you may tell them that the weapon they are training to use may cause death and injury of another person, as well as tell them that they better have a really good reason to use that weapon.
Possession of a weapon gives power, and with power comes responsibility. I see noting wrong with instilling such responsibility through formal and mandatory training. Alas, I do not think you objected to the idea of training in principle.
Wojtek