5 Hurt in School Shooting

[Crazed Rabbit]

So since the law and/or its enforcement there doesn't even manage to keep people from getting their mitts on suitable firearms illegally, wouldn't it be better to get rid of guns once and for all so the things simply aren't available on the market, legal or illegal, in the first place...? Sure, gangsters can still get them, but they'll be paying premium for whatever crap the smugglers can get in so it's only the "pro" criminals who're getting them... it works more or less that way in Japan AFAIK.

As long as we're talking about different societies, you think maybe Japan is different from America and the UK?

And hasn't England gone to the 'getting rid of handguns* once and for all' method? Or does your definition of professional criminals include yob teens shooting kids riding bikes?

Besides, even if by some magic you could take out all the guns in American society, citizens would still be rendered defenseless to criminals. That would be a net loss and embolden criminals - no more worrying about whether someone your robbing has a gun.

...because crimes stem from causes and effects quite different from the legislation developed to contain and limit them, for example ? The laws we're talking about here have no direct effect on the social conditions and pressures that produce crime, violent or no; they just affect the availability of different tools that can be utilized for the purpose, and AFAIK tight controls (caveat: that are actually also enforced) on firearms ownership tend to have an effect of reducing actual deaths by the simple virtue of depriving would-be killers of easily lethal weapons.

As has been already observed, it'd be kind of challenging to carry out a massacre at a school or some other public place with a knife or axe. But it's quite easy enough to make a remarkably spirited attempt at killing lots of people in a rather short time with a few guns...

And what of people defending themselves with firearms? They are the ones who are physically disadvantaged to criminals with guns, and benefit more from having firearms. Nutcases trying to kill as many as possible are statistically irrelevant. Most crime is nothing like that, and a knife or club in a criminal's hand is almost as good as a firearm, except now you've made their prey defenseless.

No rabbit the bare minimum isn't enough ,what is needed is comprehensive legislation all the way from source to user .

Reality tends to disagree. Some states and areas with lax gun control have little crime. Perhaps other circumstances are favorable, but either way it shows you don't need oppressive gun control to have little crime. Heck, maybe something to do with that whole -criminals-aren't-too-excited-to rob-armed-people thing.

this mayor fellow , he wouldn't be the one with the drug habit and preference for prostitutes would he

No, that'd be the city councilman.

Errrrr...no the ban was accompanied by varying increases and decreases of murders just like other areas , it showed a significant increase in areas with a drug problem during the peak of that problem just like other areas with he same drug problem showed significant inceases at that time .

Lol - 'at the time' - you mean for the last thirty odd years? And to be specific, what 'other areas' are you speaking of?

Ah you mean that being able to obtain weapons by using loopholes in the legislation is wrong so the criminals are wrong and nothing should be done to close those loopholes as they would interfere with law abiding citizens wanting to trade guns without licencing , registration and backround checks from source to user .

There were no loopholes, just plain illegality. Is that so hard to accept?

Hmmmm since when ? is this the past 100 years thing again ?

Lol, still no explanation. They closed all the loopholes, didn't they? Yet they still have violent crime.

Ah so that would be a call for a handgun ban then

Handguns are banned* in DC.

CR

[Redleg]

No rabbit the bare minimum isn't enough ,what is needed is comprehensive legislation all the way from source to user .

Define comprehensive legislation in the United States Congress, where one has to insure that the laws being legislated do not violate the current constitution and its amendments. This is the fallacy of the gun control lobby and yes even the pro-gun lobby.

Legislative law does not trump the United States Constitution. To trump the constitution one must amend same through the constitutional process.

[Watchman]

Besides, even if by some magic you could take out all the guns in American society, citizens would still be rendered defenseless to criminals. That would be a net loss and embolden criminals - no more worrying about whether someone your robbing has a gun.

I'll pretty much quarantee no robber here has to worry about that either, but the funny thing is we seem to have awful few of them per capita... and they tend to display a marked shortage of the sort of gratuitious viciousness that's apparently pretty common in US violent crime.

Might of have something to do with a law enforcement system that actually does its job and isn't clogged up by stupid "sue for million dollars" scams.

Reality tends to disagree. Some states and areas with lax gun control have little crime. Perhaps other circumstances are favorable, but either way it shows you don't need oppressive gun control to have little crime. Heck, maybe something to do with that whole -criminals-aren't-too-excited-to rob-armed-people thing.

See above. You can have little crime - and little *serious* crime at that - also with pretty draconian gun laws.

I suspect the victim packing is a bit of a moot point if the criminal's already holding him at a gunpoint too...

Lol, still no explanation. They closed all the loopholes, didn't they? Yet they still have violent crime.

You're claiming the closure of "all loopholes"... in the context of US law, and firearm regulations at that ? That sort of sounds like claiming they set fire to granite with matches...

[Tribesman]

There were no loopholes, just plain illegality. Is that so hard to accept?

Really ? So tell me what are the various regulations concerning second handgun sales by individuals ? what are the regulations concerning registered gun dealers selling weapons at temporary events ?

Lol - 'at the time' - you mean for the last thirty odd years? And to be specific, what 'other areas' are you speaking of?

Nope I mean the steep rise during one period of those last 30 odd years it covers roughly a third of the period you are on about and acount for a temporary doubling in certain violent crimes...as for other areas ....well you have the statistics don't you ? Or would you like the 14 main cities affected or the 2 worst states ?

Reality tends to disagree. Some states and areas with lax gun control have little crime.

Reality suggests that the lax gun laws in those areas have absolutely nothing to do with the crime levels .

Define comprehensive legislation in the United States Congress, where one has to insure that the laws being legislated do not violate the current constitution and its amendments. This is the fallacy of the gun control lobby and yes even the pro-gun lobby.

Legislative law does not trump the United States Constitution. To trump the constitution one must amend same through the constitutional process.
Yesterday 21:33

Theres the thing Red , the second is a badly formed , badly worded , outdated piece of crap .

[Redleg]

Theres the thing Red , the second is a badly formed , badly worded , outdated piece of crap .

Regardless of your personal opinion on the 2nd Amendment - it is still part of the constitution. Until the people of the United States agree to amend the constitution to remove the current 2nd Amendment or to chang it - it has the full force of the constitution.

Hince the laws that are being legislated have to be concise and limited in scope in order not to remove a right granted to the people by the people. As the current legislation shows the majority of the people still support the 2nd Amendment to some degree.

Now argue that our current laws need to be enforced - and I would probably agree whole heartly with you. Attacking the second amendment - is a none issue, and has always been a none issue in a gun control arguement as far as I am concerned.

Attack the root cause - the predation of violence that fosters the desire to use a handgun. Attack the failure of the current laws and the proper enforcement of such laws. Hell I might even agree with you on some of it, however attacking the 2nd Amendment is a false arguement.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'll pretty much quarantee no robber here has to worry about that either, but the funny thing is we seem to have awful few of them per capita... and they tend to display a marked shortage of the sort of gratuitious viciousness that's apparently pretty common in US violent crime.

Good for you, but that doesn't help us.

Might of have something to do with a law enforcement system that actually does its job and isn't clogged up by stupid "sue for million dollars" scams.
See above. You can have little crime - and little *serious* crime at that - also with pretty draconian gun laws.

I suspect the victim packing is a bit of a moot point if the criminal's already holding him at a gunpoint too...

Not really. There are many instances where a victim at gunpoint was able to draw their own gun and defend themselves.

You're claiming the closure of "all loopholes"... in the context of US law, and firearm regulations at that ? That sort of sounds like claiming they set fire to granite with matches...

No, I was talking of UK law.

Really ? So tell me what are the various regulations concerning second handgun sales by individuals ? what are the regulations concerning registered gun dealers selling weapons at temporary events ?

Are you saying the method the Columbine killers used to get their guns was not illegal?

Nope I mean the steep rise during one period of those last 30 odd years it covers roughly a third of the period you are on about

And what of the other 20 years?

and acount for a temporary doubling in certain violent crimes...as for other areas ....well you have the statistics don't you ?

Seeing as you haven't mentioned what 'areas' you're talking about, no.

Why don't you provide some objective proof of what you're talking about?

Reality suggests that the lax gun laws in those areas have absolutely nothing to do with the crime levels .

And yet you said:

what is needed is comprehensive legislation all the way from source to user .

Gee, it would seem like 'comprehensive' legislation is not needed for low crime.

CR

[Xiahou]

I'll pretty much quarantee no robber here has to worry about that either, but the funny thing is we seem to have awful few of them per capita... and they tend to display a marked shortage of the sort of gratuitious viciousness that's apparently pretty common in US violent crime.

And do you think guns have anything to do with that? Compare the effects on violent crime, if any, that occurred when countries like the UK enacted strict gun control laws. Did it stop violent crime, did it continue to increase, or was there no noticeable change?

Frankly, it's immaterial as to whether or not guns reduce crime in the US. What's more important is that there's no significant evidence to suggest that banning guns reduces crime. If banning guns won't likely have any impact on crime, why take firearms from law abiding citizens? You can have your gun control, I'll keep my right to own firearms.

[Watchman]

Because it keeps jumpy idiots from gunning down lost strangers who've come to the wrong house for example ? Because it helps reduce the numbers of firearms in commercial circulation and hence also accessible to criminals ?

Good for you, but that doesn't help us.

Brilliant job missing the point. Ever wonder why that would happen to be the case ?
You might want to try looking to issues quite different from gun ownership if you want to be safe from crime and violence is what I'm saying.

Not really. There are many instances where a victim at gunpoint was able to draw their own gun and defend themselves.

...and is this supposed to hold compared to the cases where they weren't, or got ventilated for their trouble ? Individual anecdotes are of no interest here; how does that claim stand statistically and relative to the number of incidents ?

[Tribesman]

Are you saying the method the Columbine killers used to get their guns was not illegal?

Was Anderson prosecuted or is there a loophole in the law
?

And what of the other 20 years?

Indeed what of the other 20 years ?
It appears you are talking bollox Rabbit .
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

[Xiahou]

Because it keeps jumpy idiots from gunning down lost strangers who've come to the wrong house for example ? Because it helps reduce the numbers of firearms in commercial circulation and hence also accessible to criminals ?

Huh? Again, show me a western country where banning guns had any significant positive impact on violent crime.

...and is this supposed to hold compared to the cases where they weren't, or got ventilated for their trouble ? Individual anecdotes are of no interest here; how does that claim stand statistically and relative to the number of incidents ?

The statement he replied to of yours was pure supposition. You made a blanket statement that guns are no good if the criminal already has his pointed at you. Anecdotal evidence is sufficient to prove that false. He doesn't need to claim that they're always useful in such a circumstance, just showing that they can still be useful even in such a situation defeats your claim.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Was Anderson prosecuted or is there a loophole in the law
?

Lack of prosecution does not mean it wasn't illegal. Indeed, it appears it would have been legally correct to prosecute her for the straw purchase (illegally buying a gun as proxy for someone who can't legally buy a gun). I can't speak for why they chose not to prosecute. In any case, your wording betrays you. You ask if she was prosecuted, not if she did anything illegal, and your question is therefore based on false pretenses.

Indeed what of the other 20 years ?
It appears you are talking bollox Rabbit .

Gee, maybe how since the ban, DC has been ranked first in the nation for per capita murders, with a few exceptions where it was second or third.

Brilliant job missing the point. Ever wonder why that would happen to be the case ?
You might want to try looking to issues quite different from gun ownership if you want to be safe from crime and violence is what I'm saying.

Somewhat immaterial; the causes are not exactly relevant to the discussion were having, further than saying that gun control doesn't decrease crime.

CR

[Tribesman]

Gee, maybe how since the ban, DC has been ranked first in the nation for per capita murders, with a few exceptions where it was second or third.

So it had more murders than other places except when it had less murders
Now then rabbit , did it have more murders than other places except when it had less murders before the ban or only after the ban ?

Did the murder rate increase or decrease when the ban was introduced ?
After it decreased (oops answered the question for ya) did the following steep increase mirror that of other cities with similar problems but different gun laws ?
After the peak went are the murder rates now higher or lower than they were before the ban ?

So I repeat....

Indeed what of the other 20 years ?
It appears you are talking bollox Rabbit .

Lack of prosecution does not mean it wasn't illegal. Indeed, it appears it would have been legally correct to prosecute her for the straw purchase (illegally buying a gun as proxy for someone who can't legally buy a gun). I can't speak for why they chose not to prosecute. In any case, your wording betrays you. You ask if she was prosecuted, not if she did anything illegal, and your question is therefore based on false pretenses.

My wording betrays me ? you crack me up , you really do
Rabbit I was specific about what I asked , there is a reason for asking it , are you avoiding it because you don't like the answer ?
I shall repeat....Really ? So tell me what are the various regulations concerning second hand gun sales by individuals ? what are the regulations concerning registered gun dealers selling weapons at temporary events ?
hmmmmm....wording
Now there were prosecutions for some of the firearms used , their purchase was clearly illegal , there was not prosecutions for some of the firearms used because due to loopholes it is cloudily legal/illegal...that is an example of ineffective gun laws in case you don't get it .

[Crazed Rabbit]

Tribes, you know the ban went into effect in 1976 right?

And that before the ban the murder rate had seemingly peaked and started dropping? Yet after the ban the rate started rising again, and only once since that time has the murder rate been below what it was in 1976.

So the murder rate...increased.

Now there were prosecutions for some of the firearms used , their purchase was clearly illegal , there was not prosecutions for some of the firearms used because due to loopholes it is cloudily legal/illegal

Lol, tribes, you okay there?

CR

[Tribesman]

Tribes, you know the ban went into effect in 1976 right?

Yes , so what does that say about that years figures .....It means they cannot be used as a years figures before the ban or after the ban .
errrrrr........you do know when the ban went into effect in 1976 don't you ?

So the murder rate...increased.

nope .

Lol, tribes, you okay there?

Awwwww... too hard for you to understend is it , or is it that you don't like the answer ?
Look ....Indeed, it appears it would have been legally correct to prosecute her for the straw purchase would it ? a legal loophole Rabbit means a prosecution would not be legally correct even though it appears that it should be legally correct to prosecute .
As for the actual prosecutions that did happen , is one of those convictions slightly dodgy ?
hmmmm...a person who is not a registered arms dealer selling second hand ammunition to a person who is over the age of 18 ...legal or illegal ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Year:_____________Murder Rate, per 100k
1976 ____________26.8 (the Year the ban took effect)
1977 ____________27.8 (Note to tribesy, this number is bigger than 26.8)
1978 ____________28 (As is this one)
1979 ____________27.4 (And this one)
1980 ____________31.5 (And this one)
1981 ____________35.1 (And this one)
1982 ____________30.7 (And this one)
1983 ____________29.4 (Gee, almost like the rate actually increased, huh?)
1984 ____________28.1
1985 ____________23.5
1986 ____________31
1987 ____________36.2
1988 ____________59.5
1989 ____________71.9
1990 ____________77.8
1991 ____________80.6
1992 ____________75.2
1993 ____________78.5
1994 ____________70
1995 ____________65
1996 ____________73.1
1997 ____________56.9
1998 ____________49.7
1999 ____________46.4
2000 ____________41.8
2001 ____________40.3
2002 ____________46.4
2003 ____________44.7
2004 ____________35.7
2005 ____________33.5
2005 ____________29.1

Now the only way I can think of you stubbornly insisting that the numbers decrease is that you think the rate before 1976, in the 30s, means the rate decreased from that. That doesn't make sense, since the rate had already decreased to what it was in 1976 before the ban was passed. To clarify, the rate was going down. It stopped going down with the ban.

Even when you look at the higher rate several years before the ban, the rate was higher than that from 1987 to 2004 and has only just recently decreased to slightly below it.

As for the straw purchase - it was illegal, but they didn't prosecute because they couldn't track down who had sold her the guns. No loophole. Would requiring all individual gun owners to keep files and do background checks on have helped prosecute her? Perhaps, but screw that. Owning firearms does not make you obliged to act as an accountant and information gatherer for the government. As has been shown, gun control doesn't decrease crime.

CR

[Myrddraal]

Could you give the stats for the years running up to the ban?

As has been shown, gun control doesn't decrease crime.

One example isn't 'showing' imo, it's evidence, but not proof.

[Tribesman]

1976 ____________26.8 (the Year the ban took effect)
1977 ____________27.8 (Note to tribesy, this number is bigger than 26.8)

errrrrr........you do know when the ban went into effect in 1976 don't you ?
Now then rabbit what is unique about the figures for the year 1976 that make them entirely absolutely completely ......hmmmm ...whats the word ....ah ......irrelevant ?

As for the straw purchase - it was illegal, but they didn't prosecute because they couldn't track down who had sold her the guns. No loophole.

Errrrrr....
I shall repeat....Really ? So tell me what are the various regulations concerning second hand gun sales by individuals ? what are the regulations concerning registered gun dealers selling weapons at temporary events ?

Would requiring all individual gun owners to keep files and do background checks on have helped prosecute her? Perhaps, but screw that. Owning firearms does not make you obliged to act as an accountant and information gatherer for the government.

Does owning or selling an automobile make you obliged to act as an "accountant" or "information gatherer" for the government ? does owning or selling a house ?

As has been shown, gun control doesn't decrease crime.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Could you give the stats for the years running up to the ban?

From tribe's link:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

Like I've been saying, it was decreasing after a spike in the 1970s until the gun ban, when it increased.

One example isn't 'showing' imo, it's evidence, but not proof.

Research has been done showing the availability of firearms doesn't affect crime rates, the state with one of the lowest crime rates (vermont) allows people to carry around concealed pistols with no license or permit; areas with gun bans often have higher crime rates than nearby cities without said gun control; government studies have found no evidence to support the idea that gun control lowers crime; the UK.

CR

[TevashSzat]

While I personally am an advocate of gun control and would love to come post with statistics and stuff, I don't have that much time and am putting this up for discussion:

Xiahou and Crazed Rabbit say that gun control laws have not reduced crime, which I believe may be true, but a question to ask is how heavily are these gun control laws enforced? If they aren't enforced very well, then there is no doubt that criminals can get them easily and just with some minor inconveniences, but is there any statistics on areas with gun control that are enforced very strictly?

[Tribesman]

Like I've been saying, it was decreasing after a spike in the 1970s until the gun ban, when it increased.

No it didn't rabbit it varied , going year on year either side of the irrelevant year it goes .
down up up up down up down up up down .
down down down down up up down down down up .
So were there more increaes or decreases either side of the ban ?

The problem you have is that the year you want to try and use to "prove" your point cannot be used . Now you can continue using a false benchmark if you wish , but that just makes your claims false doesn't it .


BTW any luck with posting the second hand sales loopholes that make the gun legislation ineffective ?

How about a new crusade for you to go on ?...stop the oppresive government making people register cars Its criminal I tell ya , it turns the people into informants

[Crazed Rabbit]

Another point; DC had the highest murder rate in the entire nation for the vast majority of the past 30 years, except when it had only the second or third highest a few years.

If outside trends affected that rate, then they would have similarly affected other cities. But the gun ban did nothing to improve DC's rate against other cities (and DC was the only major city to pass a significant ban in that period). Was there rate before 1976 high? Yes, but it could not be any higher than first in the nation per capita. DC and other major cities were all affected by various trends over the years, but the introduction into DC equation of a handgun ban did nothing to lower their rate compared to other cities.

down up up up down up down up up down .
down down down down up up down down down up .
So were there more increaes or decreases either side of the ban ?

So, in other words, gun control doesn't stop crime...

Or maybe we should take the average of the rates years before and after the ban.

Xiahou and Crazed Rabbit say that gun control laws have not reduced crime, which I believe may be true, but a question to ask is how heavily are these gun control laws enforced?

A very good question. Given that there are areas, states and cities with both little gun control and low crime, it would seem that with proper enforcement, guns can be kept of of criminal use with unobtrusive laws.

New York City experienced a big drop in crime with better enforcement of all laws, which would lead one to believe that improved enforcement is much better than simply tacking on more and more laws. After all, it's illegal for criminals with past convictions to possess firearms, no need to make it doubly illegal.

CR

[Tribesman]

If outside trends affected that rate, then they would have similarly affected other cities. But the gun ban did nothing to improve DC's rate against other cities (and DC was the only major city to pass a significant ban in that period). Was there rate before 1976 high? Yes, but it could not be any higher than first in the nation per capita. DC and other major cities were all affected by various trends over the years, but the introduction into DC equation of a handgun ban did nothing to lower their rate compared to other cities

So there wouldn't be an example of somewhere where the pattern mirrors that of DC before the ban then has two proportionally smaller reductions than DC then has steady increases while DC still reduces then , and there certainly wouldn't be an example where while DCs rates decline after the ban its rates continue to increase .
Now of course if these two examples existed that would mean that your assertion is of the testicular variety wouldn't it

Now I suppose that two random examples might not be convincing for you rabbit , perhaps I should randomly choose another two or more to further illustrate the falseness of your claims , but then again someone who thinks that owning a firearm should have less restrictions and paperwork than owning a car is not going to be convinced by anything unless it is delivered at the point of a gun .

[Crazed Rabbit]

And what rule, tribesy, has no exceptions? Once again, you're on some 'any exception disproves the rule' fallacy.

The thing is, for all your talk of other examples, DC had the number one in the entire nation murder rate for almost every one of the past 30 years. All examples and trends, etc. aside, gun control simply didn't lower crime by absolute measures in DC or even relative to other cities which did not institute gun control at that time.

Or just take a look at the rise in violent crime in England.

CR

[Tribesman]

And what rule, tribesy, has no exceptions? Once again, you're on some 'any exception disproves the rule' fallacy.

Examples that disprove the rule disprove the rule Rabbit , that is no fallacy .

The thing is, for all your talk of other examples, DC had the number one in the entire nation murder rate for almost every one of the past 30 years.

You see Rabbit the problem is that you are basing your theory on that premise , it is a false premise which means that your theory is also false

Or just take a look at the rise in violent crime in England.

OK why not...
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page63.asp
errrrr.....its falling isn't it

[Crazed Rabbit]

And where did I say the rule was 'no other city can have increases in crime while DC has decreases in crime'? I said only that gun control has not lowered crime in DC, regardless of national trends.

it is a false premise which means that your theory is also false

Oh? Do tell where another city had a higher rate than DC for a significant time.

ts falling isn't it

Or not.

CR

[Tribesman]

Oh? Do tell where another city had a higher rate than DC for a significant time.

Oh really Rabbit , you want me to show you how your claims that Washington had the #1 rate apart from when in was #2 or #3 is bollox
Hmmmm...thats a hard one how about it being #10 ? Would that be an exception to your rule ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Do explain how that makes DC's gun control effective.

CR

[Tribesman]

Do explain how that makes DC's gun control effective.

It explains that once again what you present as facts to make your case are not facts .
You claimed that the fall following the ban (which you strangely claimed was a rise )in washingtons would be matched by other areas that didn't have the handgun ban ,that isn't true is it.
You claimed that Washington was #1 if it was not #2 or #3 , that isn't true is it .
You claimed that the weapons sales in the school shooting were illegal and there was no legal loophole , that isn't true is it .
You claimed that the peak in murders at the time of the crack epidemic was not mirrored in other cities with a crack problem , that isn't true is it .

So to summarise .
Your claim is that firearm legislation doesn't have any effect on levels of gun crime .
My claim is that in the absence of effective firearm legislation examples from ineffective legislation cannot be used to measure effects .
Your claim is that paperwork concerning and registartion of ownership of firearms makes you a government accountant and informant .
My claim is that calling for less regulations on purchase of firearms than you have for buying a car or a house is somewhat crazy .

BTW rabbit , would you like to debate firearm legislation ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

You claimed that Washington was #1 if it was not #2 or #3 , that isn't true is it .

Proof?

And you still haven't shown how that made DC's gun control effective.

Let's see; does availability of guns affect crime levels?
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsupp.html



Now, you said this:

No rabbit the bare minimum isn't enough ,what is needed is comprehensive legislation all the way from source to user .

Which is simply false. Let's take a look at Vermont, shall we, where today's murder rate is a fraction of the national rate. And they certainly don't have 'source to user' legislation. Oh, you'll whine about how the situation there is different from other states. Maybe it is, but it certainly shows how false your claim is.

Hey, I've got an idea; let's look at Seattle. That's a big city, lots of people and the like. But still, the rate their is 1/5 of the most recent rate in DC, which is lower than it's been in DC for many, many years.

And Seattle allows anyone who's not a criminal and 21 to apply and automatically receive a license to carry a gun, like the rest of Washington state. And with none of you 'source to user' legislation.

Gee, what's that word you like to write so often, and how does it apply to your claim?

My claim is that in the absence of effective firearm legislation examples from ineffective legislation cannot be used to measure effects .

And how is DC's legislation ineffective? No residents can own handguns, or buy handguns, or use long guns for self defense.

What city in the US would you say had effective gun control?

Oh, let's take a look at the UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../31/do3101.xml

In response to the recent horror of Rhys Jones's killing in Liverpool, Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, asserted that gun crime was falling. But, as her Tory counterpart, David Davis, has pointed out, Home Office statistics show that, if you exclude air guns (the least dangerous firearms), the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales has risen more than fourfold since 1998-99, from 864 to 3,821.

Really effective, that.

And what about that government study I posted here earlier; no evidence that gun laws reduced crime.

CR

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Xiahou and Crazed Rabbit say that gun control laws have not reduced crime, which I believe may be true, but a question to ask is how heavily are these gun control laws enforced? If they aren't enforced very well, then there is no doubt that criminals can get them easily and just with some minor inconveniences, but is there any statistics on areas with gun control that are enforced very strictly?

Like I said, if they do enforce it correctly, even still though, how can they get the guns off the street if the crinmals are not caught and are not resigted?