(Sorry, this was too long for a single LJ comment, and I really wanted it here rather than in my journal.)
I think it would be bad policy to ban all pocketknives (and in fact I think it’s bad policy to stop people taking small pocketknives onto airplanes), but I think it would be good policy (assuming enforceability) to prevent people bringing handguns into densely-populated urban centers without any sort of oversight, recordkeeping, or traceability. That means that I’ve looked at the situation, made my own judgements, and come up with (perhaps) a different answer than you have. But in principle it is the same judgement you would be making if you said it was OK to prevent people from driving 200mph along the cobblestone streets of the old section of downtown Boston, or if you said it was OK to prevent people from having ICBMs they could launch at the country their team lost to in the World Cup, or suitcase nukes in case that rush-hour traffic just pushes them over the edge.
PS — I would have a lot to say about the Second Amendment protecting the right of the people to violently overthrow their government, but I’ve already seriously cut into my plans for this afternoon. Two points (1) in the 18th century, firearms were a credible deterrent to a despotic government. In the 21st, they aren’t, so we’re back to everybody’s right to defend themselves with an ICBM. And (2) I bet there are (at least proportionally to the prevalence of these beliefs in the overall population) vastly more people who feel that the violent overthrow of the present US government is utterly essential because it doesn’t exterminate sodomites than who feel that the violent overthrow of the present US government is utterly essential because it has exceeded its constitutional authority. The successor government is unlikely to be a place you like better.
PPS — I will point out that the people arguing on the less-gun-restriction side caricature their opponents as uniformly opposed to any access to any kind of firearms for any private citizen. The people arguing on the more-gun-restriction side caricature their opponents as uniformly opposed to any restrictions whatsoever on any individual’s access to firearms (except maybe convicted felons, who in the caricature they think probably just should have been shot anyway to save hassle). I don’t know which caricature is closer to the truth, but in my experience neither one seems very accurate.
One person’s notion of the point of restrictions on gun ownership. (part 3)
I think it would be bad policy to ban all pocketknives (and in fact I think it’s bad policy to stop people taking small pocketknives onto airplanes), but I think it would be good policy (assuming enforceability) to prevent people bringing handguns into densely-populated urban centers without any sort of oversight, recordkeeping, or traceability. That means that I’ve looked at the situation, made my own judgements, and come up with (perhaps) a different answer than you have. But in principle it is the same judgement you would be making if you said it was OK to prevent people from driving 200mph along the cobblestone streets of the old section of downtown Boston, or if you said it was OK to prevent people from having ICBMs they could launch at the country their team lost to in the World Cup, or suitcase nukes in case that rush-hour traffic just pushes them over the edge.
PS — I would have a lot to say about the Second Amendment protecting the right of the people to violently overthrow their government, but I’ve already seriously cut into my plans for this afternoon. Two points (1) in the 18th century, firearms were a credible deterrent to a despotic government. In the 21st, they aren’t, so we’re back to everybody’s right to defend themselves with an ICBM. And (2) I bet there are (at least proportionally to the prevalence of these beliefs in the overall population) vastly more people who feel that the violent overthrow of the present US government is utterly essential because it doesn’t exterminate sodomites than who feel that the violent overthrow of the present US government is utterly essential because it has exceeded its constitutional authority. The successor government is unlikely to be a place you like better.
PPS — I will point out that the people arguing on the less-gun-restriction side caricature their opponents as uniformly opposed to any access to any kind of firearms for any private citizen. The people arguing on the more-gun-restriction side caricature their opponents as uniformly opposed to any restrictions whatsoever on any individual’s access to firearms (except maybe convicted felons, who in the caricature they think probably just should have been shot anyway to save hassle). I don’t know which caricature is closer to the truth, but in my experience neither one seems very accurate.