Argument: It is easier to enforce limited gun-controls
(Redirected from Argument:It is easier to enforce limited gun-controls)
- Robert F. Drinan, Former Democratic US Congressman from Mass. and member of the House judiciary Committee, "Gun Control: The Good Outweighs the Evil", 1976 (responding to Prof. Kates article) - "While one can argue that an analogy does exist between the Volstead Act and a ban against handguns, prohibition was absolute in the case of alcoholic beverages, while in the case of firearms, such a ban would be partial; individuals who have legitimate sporting or self-defense interests will be able to purchase long guns. Moreover, the human proclivity to consume alcoholic beverages is surely more powerful than the desire to own handguns (particularly when long guns are available.) It seems highly unrealistic to expect the same sort of difficulty in enforcing a law which, unlike prohibition in the 1920s, does not outlaw absolutely a very powerful human desire. That enforcement would not be completely effective is irrefutable; this cannot, however, serve as the rationale for abandoning the law. Many existing laws, such as those outlawing larceny or the possession of heroin, are difficult to enforce, but no one suggests that for this reason they be rescinded."