Those supporting the right of citizens to keep and bear arms won a major victory today when the United States Supreme Court decision in McDonald vs The City of Chicago affirmed the Second Amendment applies to all states and municipalities, meaning the Second Amendment is now incorporated. That means that Chicago's draconian gun ownership ban is now history.
I watched some of the reactions to the decision on ABC's World News and I have to say the response by some folks was disheartening. More than one person decried the decision because it would mean “more blood in the streets.” Isn't that what cities with gun bans have already? Certainly Chicago has seen how well it's gun ban has worked, with numerous deaths caused by criminal gunning down unarmed victims. The gun ban certainly didn't stop them from getting guns or using them. The same was true in Washington DC, where in the Heller vs DC decision the Court decided 9-0 that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. (The 5-4 decision was on DC's gun ownership ban.) More than once Washington DC had the misfortune to be the “Murder Capital of the US”, putting a lie to the claim that their gun ban prevented violent crime from being even worse.
What far too many of the “let's get the guns off the street, particularly those owned by law abiding citizens” folks have failed to realize is that widespread gun ownership tends to drop the violent crime rate, not increase it. Every state that has switched over to shall issue concealed carry weapons permits have seen their violent crime rate tumble. Those with laws that make it almost impossible to own guns legally have seen their crime rates skyrocket. What did they expect when those laws disarmed the very people most likely to be victims of those criminals?