I am in favor of reasonable controls but the challenge here is what does the constitution (Supreme Court) say. Ralph, a few more controls may help, but in the Court's "Heller" decision they struck down DC's ban.
A comment during the case: "At the crudest level, as Justice Breyer wrote, violent crime in Washington has increased since the ban took effect in 1976. “Indeed,” he continued, “a comparison with 49 other major cities reveals that the district’s homicide rate is actually substantially higher relative to these other cities than it was before the handgun restriction went into place"
In the year after the Supreme Court’s Heller decision that struck down D.C.’s handgun ban and, even more importantly, let citizens keep their guns unlocked so that they were available to be used, D.C.’s murder rate fell by 25 percent, reducing it to the lowest it has been since the 1960s. What was the point of the ban?
The Supreme Court recently ruled against Chicago's gun laws in the McDonald v. Chicago case. While your objective is honorable, the constitution may need an amendment to accomplish your dream and I'm afraid that will happen only after Puget Sound is surrounded by coconut bearing palm trees.
Just a common sense challenge to the "gun free zones" does anyone actually believe that that's a deterrent to anyone except the people who obey the law. Someone planning a first degree murder isn't going to be too concerned about the possibility of them adding that violation to the charges. I guess it makes some feel better to have those, but honestly, what the hell good are they.
So push forward if that's what floats your boat, but what a waste of time!
A final comment on your reference to David Hemingway, that article was more of a bash the other guy than an original research paper. I think we should stick with the facts as you mentioned and it seems to me that the Supreme Court would be a better place to look than to a Harvard Professor.
More information about formatting options