The ban on handguns in DC is understandable. There are a lot of higher ranking personnel that reside and work in the DC area. While I do not believe that a person's right to bear arms should be violated, the situation of today's world and the mindset of some have forced some of these actions, such as the banning of handguns in DC.
The DC handgun ban is consistent with other state regulation. Plus, Washington D.C. is a much more high security area than the rest of Maryland. More protections are needed to keep people safe within D.C., which is why the handgun ban makes sense for ordinary citizens in this day and age.
The DC handgun fan is fair and consistant with state and national regulations. It is not taking away a person's ability to bear arms, rather it is set up to try to protect a part of America that needs the extra protection. It is a necessary law that does not rob anyone of their constitutional rights.
A ban on handguns in DC would have little effect on gun violence in the area itself, and is largely inconsistent with many other states (although is certainly in line with large cities in the US). The ban on handguns, like bans in general, will do little to stop those seeking to obtain guns, will have no effect on mass shootings, and will only serve to inconvenience law abiding citizens.
Yes, the DC handgun ban is consistent with other state regulations. DC is quite strict with its gun laws in general. This is good policy, because DC is a largely metropolitan area, and people there do not likely need guns for hunting. Other state regulations make sure that guns do not get in the hands of the wrong people, and that the guns can be tracked. These laws are consistent.
Washington D.C. is unique in that for several years, it was the murder capital of the United States. Since the handgun ban has been in effect, the murder rate has decreased markedly. Washington's ban isn't consistent with other states, but the experiment in gun control is a lesson for everyone else to notice about crime and guns.
It isn't consistent, it's surprising that the legislation for it made it through, honestly. As somebody that is very, very anti-guns it really doesn't bother me, but that doesn't mean it's a precedent that we should be excited about. Laws should be consistent with one another, just because this accomplishes something good doesn't mean the means to achieve it was.