Think that through, smoking in your home and lying about it makes you a felon for lying on the 4473, not for victimizing anyone else or even being "riskier" with your otherwise lawfully owned firearm.
You could lie on the 4473 and own a hundred guns and if you never commit a criminal or negligent act, you are no threat to public safety. How, rationally, can that felony be treated the same under the law as a convicted armed robber?
The only time anyone, alcohol drinker, prescription drug user for health reasons, illegal drug user, etc, is "riskier" is when they are actively under the influence of their drug of choice. When they are sober they are as "safe" as any non-user.
Therefore the rational, limited and precise way (hmmm, strict scrutiny-ish ain't that?) to promote public safety is therefore to not regulate broadly but simply make it unlawful to possess loaded weapons in public while intoxicated as defined by the law of that state.
Criminalize particular actions that put others at direct risk, not blanket categories of behavior.
As for recidivism rates, those are only utile if controlled for both initial felony conviction type and type of further offenses.
If you are convicted of felony possession with no associated violence (victimless crime), and you recommit felony possession with no associated violence (victimless crime), then your recidivism rate is irrelevent as you still aren't a risk to others.
Last time I looked at the journals the data on criminal progression from non-violent felonies to violent felonies was, at best, inconclusive. Without facts to back up the assertion that, say, a felony check kiter will use a gun in their next check kiting scheme or go from kiting checks to burglary, there's no rational basis to prevent them from owning one.