U.S. citizens use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year. Take into consideration of all the people that haven’t been documented into this increasing number. Hundreds, maybe even thousands. There is a serious amount of people trying to get states and the government to amount to setting more authority over this situation. But what exactly is gun control? Gun control can incorporate management into what kind of weapons can be gathered and sold, who can uphold or advertize them, and where and how they can be carried. According to Sam Harris, “The usual retort that risk is everywhere might be boring to hear, but remains true. Yes, guns are “designed” for killing whereas knives are not, but that doesn’t mean you can’t have incidents of knife-attacks. Guns can level the playing field, especially for women – who are often the targets of violent crimes from more powerful opponents” (Harris, stanza 7) . This quote explains that even though guns are more popular to use, there can still be knife incidents where someone is wielding it to hurt another person or persons. Does that mean we have to put more constraint and more laws on knives also? People who are often targets of violent crime, for example women, need a way to defend themselves if they cannot offer it from direct physical ways. As Harris said in the article, “guns can level the playing field”. As you read further, you will see how the federal government should not impose stricter rules on individuals, or civilians away from home, and to recognize that more guns doesn’t mean more murder. As of today, the federal government should not incorporate stricter gun rules on individuals. Many opposers for gun control dispute that asserting limited access to firearms contravenes the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. According to Harris, “Gun control activists seize upon violent episodes to alarm people and promote their own political agendas. Taking away law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves, they insist, won’t weaken gun violence but will empower criminals” (Harris, stanza 7). Although this is true, many advocates of gun control believe otherwise. As for many people, they want a way to protect themselves that they cannot produce themselves. By giving citizens the opportunity to have this option, the public 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 uncover 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 a 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 brutality, 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 that those murder rates began to fall before the city’s gun ban and rose after the ban went into effect (Nasso, pg 90). 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. There’s only one side that’s been left in the dark. The viewpoints of gun control advocates. According to Michael Harriot, the number of mass shootings, damage, and unintentional shootings has climbed up every year since 2014, therefore bringing out a common thread in this census, guns (Harriot, Paragraph 7). Although these statistics are true, guns are not the main threat. The people wielding the weapons carry the most threat out of it all. Another opposing viewpoint from Harriot is that a good guy with a gun never stops a bad guy with a gun (Harriot, paragraph 30). There are many times where a situation that consists of a good guy with a gun that stops a bad guy with a gun. For example, in 2014, a man with first-degree murder in the gruesome beheading of a worker was halted in his rage by a former sheriff deputy who used his own firearm to injure the criminal. There are many more news articles showing these kinds of situations. To conclude, the federal government should not impose stricter gun rules on individuals, or civilians away from home, and to understand that more guns does not mean more murder. The likely debate over gun control and the Second Amendment will not likely be at peace soon or in the coming future, as occasions of mass shootings can often reconcile driven passions on both sides. According to a Connecticut representative, named John Larson, “Anytime in the immediate aftermath of something, there’s usually not a silver bullet. The more you listen, the more you synthesize, perhaps you can come up with some common sense ideas.” (Harriot, paragraph 56). Whether or not if any regulations will be passed in the future, controversy over gun control has become an aspect of American political growth.