Ok - after reading this through quickly, a few things stick out in my mind right off the bat. I will have to re read through this more thouroughly later.
1.
"Washington banned handguns in 1976, saying it was designed to reduce violent crime in the nation's capital."How has this worked out for them? See paragraph #3
2.
"The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because ''handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia.''So their "urban environment" is free from crime? I bet the victims and/or their families (for those that can no longer speak) would have something to say about this.
3.
"Opponents say the ban plainly has not worked because guns still are readily available, through legal and illegal means. Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, Washington still ranks among the nation's highest murder cities, with 169 killings in 2006."4.
"Rifles and shotguns are legal, if kept under lock or disassembled"I'm sure this helps
So to summarize:
1976 D.C. banned handguns to reduce violent crime in the nation's capital.
1990's D.C.'s homicide rate peaked
2006 D.C.'s homicide is still rated among the highest.
Don't you think, D.C., it is time to look at the stats here and do something different?
