posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 04:41 PM
You bring up valid points that gun control laws may ultimately prove fatal in disarming criminals, and we would all hope that any judge would consider
this when making the determination if any particular gun control should be legal.
We would both agree that not allowing people to bring uzis on airplanes is a good law. I have no problem with a law abiding person bringing an
unloaded gun (just because a loaded gun might accidentally go off), a knife, sword, etc on a plane. The problem is, if we allow good people to bring
these items on planes we would inevitably allow bad people to have these items. The logic behind gun control is that if nobody is allowed to hold
guns, or at least nobody in a particular situation is allowed to hold guns, there would be no guns for good people and criminals. We both agree such
a gun control law would only be effective if we were able to get the guns out of the hands of criminals, which is highly debatable in many
circumstances. In the case of not allowing guns on airplanes, it is relatively easy, although gaps in security can and do exist, to keep all guns off
planes. In the case of eliminating guns from an entire city or state, we would both agree that such an undertaking would be quited difficult. Also,
the interests in keeping guns off planes is accute, while the interests in keeping guns out of society in general is less accute. Since the interests
of keeping guns off planes is so accute, it makes the rule valid.
So in determining if a gun control law is constitutional, we should look at 1) whether the law can be reasonably enforced to keep guns out of the
hands of wrongdoers and 2) whether the interests in eliminating guns from a particular situation are great. We can have a field day arguing poinst 1
and 2 for any particular gun control law, but we should both agree that their are situations where points 1 and 2 are satisfied and guns should not be