Washington D.C. native, Roger Chesley, editorializes for the Virginian Pilot, that "adding guns won't make D.C. less violent".

...gun control advocates contend, and I agree, that limits on guns reduce the chances of injury and death in arguments, domestic disputes, road rage and other incidents. Children are less likely to die accidentally from firearms when there aren't as many around. Fewer guns mean fewer chances of innocent bystanders being shot. And a study released in July by the nonprofit [extremist gun ban group] Violence Policy Center notes that, from 2000 through 2002, no District child 16 or younger died by shooting himself in a suicide attempt. (Alaska, which had the highest rate among the states, had 14 such deaths during that span.)

Of course he's right that children are less likely to die from a gun when there are no guns around. In fact, when there are no guns around at all, the chance of dying from one drops to zero. But what escapes Mr. Chesley is that there always have been and will always be guns around. His Utopian dream of a "gun free" society is an impossibility. There is no better evidence of that than the fact that Washington D.C. - which has banned handguns for nearly 30 years - is full of handguns.

What's more here is a journalist who lives 200 miles away in the bosom of Southeast Virginia, telling law-abiding D.C. residents that he doesn't think they're ready to be permitted to own a gun. So elitist is Chesley, that he enjoys the low crime rates of the gun-infested bible belt, while the residents of "gun free" D.C. are afraid to leave their homes after dark.