As of today, the federal government should not implicate stricter gun rules on individuals. Many opponents for gun control contend that asserting limited access to firearms violates the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. According to Harris, “Gun control activists seize upon violent episodes to scare people and promote their own political agendas. Taking away law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves, they insist, will not reduce gun violence but will empower criminals” (Harris, stanza 7). Although this is true, many activists of gun control believe otherwise. As for many people, they want a way to protect themselves that they cannot provide themselves. By giving citizens the opportunity to have this option, society can be safer. In an article titled Guns In America, Patricia Smith addresses “Gun owners say weapons can make society safer by giving people the power of self-defense” (Smith, paragraph 4). As gun advocates may object against this quote, many believe this is true. Although there are many thoughts and ideas opposing more gun control, this next section is heading into why civilians should feel safe and protected away from their home. Apart from obtaining firearms away from home, civilians should not have to worry about states or the government imposing more rules on the right to carry away from home. As stated in an article on gun control law, “Opponents of gun control argue that the vast majority of gun owners in the United States are law-abiding citizens who buy guns for sport or for protection” (Harris, paragraph 1). There are nearly thirteen million people who are hunters in the United States and nearly 990,000 a year use guns for defense. In agreement with Harris, “Placing strict regulations on gun ownership will only benefit criminals by disarming those who could otherwise defend themselves and save others” (Harris, stanza 1). If the government implicated more control on firearms, then only criminals would be subjected and known to obtain firearms. One way or another, people or criminals will find a way to retrieve what they want even if there are strict rules. In general, however, “Republicans and people in rural areas, where guns are more common, tend to favor protecting gun rights” (Smith, paragraph 3). In rural areas where guns are more common, as Smith said, gun owners are far more prone than urban owners to cite hunting as major reason they have ownership of guns. More than half of all people in the United States use guns for recreational use or protection. Many individuals have this assumption, that more guns mean more murder. That is far from the truth. According to Christine Nasso, from her book Gun Violence, there has been international confirmation and correlations that have long been offered proof that making guns less available does not reduce gun violence (Nasso, pg 90). States can regulate however much they want, but at the end of the day, there are still going to be criminals on the streets with illegal weapons on their side ready for their next victim. Just one person can make a difference. One person behind a store counter can make a difference in a difficult situation. John R. Lott Jr. shares his following viewpoint that guidelines restricting a law-abiding citizens connection to guns does not reduce gun violence, in fact, recent and past gun bans have done little to reduce crime in the cities that have actually banned them (Nasso, pg 90). Going on to talk about the murder rate in Washington D.C., Lott explains those murder rates began to fall before the city’s gun ban and rose after the ban went into effect. He further explains gun bans do not prevent criminals from owning guns, it simply ensures that only criminals possess guns (Nasso, pg 90). Many people don’t want to admit it, but taking away guns does not reduce violence in an area, it only makes sure that someone, somewhere is illegally carrying a firearm.