Byron, your logic, IMHO, is flawed. Your conclusions regarding our ultimate fate in this debate, however, are sadly, and likely to be correct.
Using your example, it is also not 'in the public interest' that that person be able to buy the gun from his neighbor, or, for that matter, steal the gun during a burglary. So, do we conclude that no private sales can occur without intervention from a government agent ... might as well say 'yes', because that conclusion is coming soon to a Congressman near you. And, therefore we also need 'safe storage' laws, and anyone who cannot buy a safe is out of luck. And then, we'll need to inspect the safe annually, provide a permit sticker for the safe, yada yada yada.
You see, freedom has downsides. Providing some freedom necessitates risk. But, based upon the law of large numbers, that freedom also translates into an overall better, safer society.
This is the problem with so much political discourse today, and we saw it in the debates the other evening. We allow ourselves to be swayed by individual tales of woe. It doesn't matter if the vast, vast majority of firearms are used for legal and good purposes ... and, it doesn't matter if violent crime has been dropping for 25 years. We're going to focus on the criminal uses of firearms, and we're going to pass more laws until there are no criminal uses ... a goal that is unattainable, and carries with it attendant problems, costs and tragedies.
Please take a look at Kopel's work on gun shows. See
http://www.i2i.org/CrimJust.htm#Other , and look for Gun Shows about 2/3 of the way down the page.
Think about his arguments, and please reconsider what you believe is an obvious conclusion.
I'm under no misconception that other Americans will consider this issue as carefully. We're all 'feeling' our way these days, and no one has time to really consider these issues. Damn shame.
Regards from AZ