In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
Uh, yeah, it's pretty clear that was exactly their choice. I don't get where Justice Stevens is coming from on this one... left field? The D.C. gun ban was pretty blatantly unconstitutional. While I'm personally no big fan of guns, I appreciate that there is at least some recourse should it become necessary to form a new Union.
Do more guns equal less crime? Well, as a friend of mine said with devilish humor, now we shall see, as D.C. is about to "run the experiment." (Oh, snap!) I believe that the relation between gun ownership and safety is very subjective, not only dependent on what type of environment you live in, but on what type of person you are. But below are some compelling statistics showing a fairly linear trend between increased gun ownership and increased deaths due to firearms. There is some spread; for instance the Swiss do have a slightly higher percent of gun ownership and much lower percent of gun-related deaths (than the U.S.), but over the 18 countries plotted, the trend is unmistakable.
This is from a report called "The Global Gun Epidemic". I don't know over what time period the stats were collected.
So, nevertheless, while I personally could not imagine feeling safer having guns around (in the circles I currently travel in), I don't want to take away that right from anyone else, and am pleased to see a reasonable ruling on the issue from the Supreme Court.