So … DC with it's absolute ban on hand guns (unless of course you are a major gun control supporter who uses your unregistered hand gun to shoot the 14 year old who broke into your backyard to go swimming) has the lowest murder rate in the US …. right?

The way to determine if a gun control law is affective is to look at crime rates using handguns. DC has long vied for the title of highest murder rate in the US often winning the #1 spot. Is the author arguing that all those murders are being done with knives, swords, and long rifles?

DC has long been the model argument for the ineffectiveness of blanket hand gun control.

I must admit that I’m curious to see if this has any affect positive or negative on the violent crime rate in DC. IMO this could trigger a valid argument for hand gun control under one of the three possibilities.

If the rate goes down then SCOTUS was right gun control as applied by DC increased the violent crime rate.

If there is no change then SCOTUS was right gun control as applied by DC reduced rights without giving any benefit.

If the rate goes up then SCOTUS was right but since gun control as applied by DC reduced the violent crime rate in DC the congress needs to work on a constitutional amendment to clarify the right to bear arms.

It's not often we get to see such a radical real world proof of concept, the results will be educational to say the least.