Political Science

Washington D.C formally known as District of Columbia has the most restrictive gun control laws.  Comparatively, it experiences the highest rates of violent crime and murder compared to major cities such as New York or Los Angeles. Though this has been directly related to the changing geography and demographics, the major factor has been attributed to the imposed ban on guns which severely curtails the individuals right to defend and protect himself (Lott, 1998). In 1976, Washington D.C enacted a virtual ban on handguns and between 1976 and 1991, homicide rates rose 200 in Washington as compared to 12 in the whole of U.S (Agresti, 1999).

Historically, gun control has served as a form of tyranny. Tyrants like Stalin, Hitler and Mao disarmed their own citizens because they knew that people who are unarmed are easier to control. The founding fathers in the federalist papers wrote about the need for individuals to arm themselves. James Madison for instance, argued that common citizens ought to be armed to guard themselves against the threat of the newly proposed federal army (Lott, 1998). Additionally, the 2nd Amendment in the constitution reads A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Well-regulated militia means local groups of individuals operating to protect their communities, families and homes. Therefore, the constitution gives the legal mandate for individuals to own guns for self defense or protection.

However, over the years the government has placed various gun control laws with the purpose of making the general public feel safe. The Bradley Law implemented on February 28, 1994, requires a five day wait on the purchase of a hand gun through licensed dealers so that a check can be done on the persons background. The Assault Weapon Ban on the other hand enacted in 1994, banned the manufacture, importation and possession of assault weapons for civilian use.

Conversely, in the 25 years since the ban of guns, murder rates have increased by 51 even when national rates decreased 36 (Agresti, 1999). The reason for these high rates of crimes has been attributed to the failure of the Bradley Bill. The D.C ban on guns irrationally prevents law abiding and deserving individuals from acquiring and owning guns while allowing criminals to acquire handguns from either the black market or from neighboring states like Virginia and Maryland. In Washington DC, residents can be convicted of felony if they own a gun in their homes despite the fact that they could be living in a dangerous neighborhood yet the courts have consistently ruled that the police have no obligation to protect individuals but rather the general public.

In an attempt to deal with the gun violence, the Metropolitan Police Department conducted Operation Ceasefire an initiative to crack down gun violence through instant gun law enforcement. Though it resulted in the seizure of 282 firearms within four months, gun crime rates continue to escalate (Agresti, 1999). Therefore, rather than banning the use of guns, a national system could be set up for registering ammunitions and guns with instant background checks and stiffer sentences as it would help in tracking perpetrators of crimes and keep off illegal sale of guns.

Today, the ban on guns makes people less safe. The myth that gun control reduces crime has been discovered to be erroneous since criminal records check can not sufficiently prevent felons from obtaining firearms since the bill is not a panacea. There is nothing to be gained by reducing the general level of gun ownership since there is no evidence to indicate that gun control reduces crime (Lott, 1998).