Residents who currently live in D.C. have sixty days .
to register there handguns, and after the time period is up, their newly acquired handguns became illegal. But, rifles and shotguns could still be purchased and owned after the time period ran out. The result of the new law surprised a lot of people. There was a 25 percent drop in gun related homicides and a 23 percent drop in gun related suicides. While D.C. experienced such a significant drop in gun related crimes, surrounding cities experienced no significant change in their rates. Another reason to believe that even local gun laws can lead to safer cities and homes.
Daniel D. Polsby, the author of the article, " The False Promise of Gun Control" focuses on how tougher gun control laws make it harder for regular people to defend themselves and easier for criminals to get what they want. First, Polsby explains how a criminal would be less likely to go after a victim who carries a gun than a victim who carries nothing. It's obvious that a criminal would choose the easier fight with a helpless person over someone who has an equal chance of winning the fight. Take police officers for example. Police officers typically do not get shot at, due in part by the fact that they carry handguns. Most police officers never shoot their handguns (except for target practice). Yet, due to the fact that they have them, it makes them a worse target for a criminal.
So, if owning a handgun means you are in power, then a handgun should be the item a criminal would want most. After all, if you are in power, people do what you want them to do. Polsby goes on to explain how criminals would be more interested in these items of power than the average person and would tend to pay more for it too. Therefore, if Congress wants to pass laws that make it harder and more expensive to purchase .
handguns, it could have a converse effect. The rising cost to own a gun would deter a regular person from buying one while the criminal still wants that item of power, no matter what the price.