What would be the effect of depriving ordinary, law-abiding citizens from taking up firearms in self-defense? Society has placed blame on the availability of firearms for countless homicides, domestic abuses, robberies and many other senseless crimes. In fact it is people that kill people, not guns. Not only do firearms play a large role in self protection, but also the use of firearms as sport has become very popular and needed. The hunting of deer and other wild game keeps the animal population low enough to keep them from starving. Onlookers have become a huge helping hand to law enforcement as of late. Outlawing guns would not necessarily lower crime rates countrywide, but more likely only stop the lawful citizens from intervening. In this country people have always had the right to bear arms; it has not only become a hobby, but also a sport. The right, that the American people have become so accustomed to, should not be taken away, but instead purchases more heavily regulated and in home storage made safer. .
In a nation where criminal gun use makes the evening news, but self-defense gets little to no coverage, it's understandable that many people would develop negative opinions regarding firearms. So what if the right to bear arms were to be stripped of the american people? One result seems certain; the law-abiding citizens would be at a distinct disadvantage should criminals acquire guns from underground markets, or in any other unlawful manner. People will always find a way if the desire is strong enough. "American civilians commonly use their privately-owned firearms to defend themselves against criminal attacks, and that such defensive uses significantly outnumber the criminal uses of firearms in America" (Schulman). Afterall, it is not possible for police officers to be everywhere they are needed at all times. Therefore, gun ownership is cutting down on the amount of violent crime officers have to deal with first hand.