We live in a society in which people may own firearms, and there is a strong history of ownership of firearms. Some will argue that in modern society, we no long need guns to defend ourselves from wild animals, hostile Indians, or ruthless holdup gangs, and that the police are provided for that purpose. Still others argue that there is not enough police protection. A large population of people living in one area means that the police cannot protect every individual. Even though we have several laws to control guns and regulate them, criminal are still able to obtain them. So why should we take away the rights from the good people who are just trying to protect themselves from criminals with guns? There for, we should preserve our right to own firearms.
             First of all, most gun owners own a gun for the purpose of protection. Although we do not defend wild animals attack anymore, we still have to able to protect ourselves from criminal in this modern world. Since people are willing to restricted gun usage, we could not protect ourselves from an armed criminal. Meantime, we give up our valuables and, sometimes life. "In 1966, the media highly publicize a safety course that taught Orlando women how to use guns; the result was Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967." (Kleck 15). In addition to that, criminals only worry when going into a house whether or not the victim is armed. In 1985, the National Institute for Justice reported that 60% of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim if he knows that the victim is armed with a gun" (The Armed 27). This world is mixed with good and bad people. Firearms do provide a greater amount of protection for those good people who are trying to protect themselves.
             Next, private firearms do appear to be effective at stopping crime. A survey conducted by a random telephone sampling of 4,978 households in all the states, except Alaska and...