Some people hold the opinion that extraditing the use of firearms for citizens will reduce the amount of criminals in their community, and even the whole country. However, this is not the way it actually turns out to be. If citizens want their community to have reduced crime levels, they should not be fighting the rights to bear arms. Some of the deadly crimes that occur could be preventable if someone were carrying a weapon to assist in preventing it. For instance, that one person is carrying a firearm does not guarantee that any crime will be halted because of the presence of a weapon, it just means that the firearm can be an asset to stop a crime being committed. For a reference to show the brutality that occurs in the United States, “The murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate [in the United States] is 63.3 percent” (Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2001). In the years between Washington DC’s Gun Ban Law and Trigger-Lock Law, which was a law stating that all firearms when unattended must be put on safety, or disassembled, were in effect, the crime rate increased by 76 percent (Pub Med. 1994). This percentage shown about the increased crime rate even while a gun ban law was in effect is a very satisfying number to those who oppose the strict aspects of gun control. 76 percent indicates a clear example of how crime in the United States does not subside when there are laws in effect to prevent citizens from owning their guns; in fact, the 76 percent increase shows that with this law, the crime rate has worsened. Crime does not stop just because law abiding citizens get their firearms taken away by the government; A survey conducted in 1997 showed that more than 18,000 prison inmates found that among those serving time for a violent crime, "30% of State offenders and 35% of Federal offenders carried a firearm when committing the crime.”
Some people hold the opinion that extraditing the use of firearms for citizens will reduce the amount of criminals in their community, and even the whole country. However, this is not the way it actually turns out to be. If citizens want their community to have reduced crime levels, they should not be fighting the rights to bear arms. Some of the deadly crimes that occur could be preventable if someone were carrying a weapon to assist in preventing it. For instance, that one person is carrying a firearm does not guarantee that any crime will be halted because of the presence of a weapon, it just means that the firearm can be an asset to stop a crime being committed. For a reference to show the brutality that occurs in the United States, “The murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate [in the United States] is 63.3 percent” (Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2001). In the years between Washington DC’s Gun Ban Law and Trigger-Lock Law, which was a law stating that all firearms when unattended must be put on safety, or disassembled, were in effect, the crime rate increased by 76 percent (Pub Med. 1994). This percentage shown about the increased crime rate even while a gun ban law was in effect is a very satisfying number to those who oppose the strict aspects of gun control. 76 percent indicates a clear example of how crime in the United States does not subside when there are laws in effect to prevent citizens from owning their guns; in fact, the 76 percent increase shows that with this law, the crime rate has worsened. Crime does not stop just because law abiding citizens get their firearms taken away by the government; A survey conducted in 1997 showed that more than 18,000 prison inmates found that among those serving time for a violent crime, "30% of State offenders and 35% of Federal offenders carried a firearm when committing the crime.”