Washington D.C. and Guns

Previously, the U.S. Supreme court struck down a ban on handguns in Washinton D.C. Well, today an article in the Wall Street Journal surfaced showcasing the new de facto near ban on handguns that has replaced the struck down law. Essentially, Washington D.C. wants to make the process of buying and owning a gun so onerous, that few people will want to do it. Didn't America attempt to disenfranchise some groups from voting with similar measures in the past?

So, some comments about the article:

Mr. Barnes' son was shot while the gun-ban was in effect, so obviously the gun ban doesn't prevent people from getting killed with guns.

"There's no denying the fact that we have a helluva lot of illegal guns on the streets," he said, but the solution isn't to "arm everyone."

So apparently the solution is to disarm only law abiding citizens? When a state outlaws guns, the only people with guns are criminals. It makes it a little unfair doesn't it?
Arizona apparently subscribes to the constitution a little more so than the nation's capital, ironically, and "last month, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a law permitting residents 21 years and older to carry concealed weapons without permits." I'd like to see how this plays out over the next few years. This could be a great social science experiment.

Further about Washington D.C.:

"In 2009, the first full year the law was in effect, homicides in the city dropped to 143 from 186 in 2008. The 2009 total was the lowest since 1966."

So what? Was this statistically significant? Was there a trend in declining gun violence over time? How about neighboring cities nearby without the gun ban, did they find similar numbers? Sometimes we are provided an answer to the wrong question.