These reductions in crime seem to correspond with a number of gun control laws that were implemented during this time, including the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
The correlation is not valid, however, because the statistics have become compounded with many other factors. Improved law enforcement, more severe sentences for criminals, better policing methods, and a stronger economy all contributed to the lower crime rates. A prime example of this compounding effect was shown in Chicago in the 1980's and 90's. A ban was placed on the sale and possession of handguns in Chicago in 1982, but high homicide rates persisted until police practices were changed in the late 1990's. This real-life scenario illustrates how increased gun control laws do not always mean less crime, and that the correlation witnessed during the 1990's is not true statistical causation.
Few gun control supporters recognize the fallacy in the popularly held belief that guns always produce violence, while gun control always reduces it. But gun ownership by law-abiding citizens also deters criminals. Guns permit people to defend themselves, their property, and their families. Criminals are disinclined to commit crimes against citizens who may likely be armed. Professor John Lott and graduate student David Mustard of the University of Chicago examined violent crime rates in cities across the country based on reports from the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, and found lower rates of violent crime in states with fewer restrictions on concealed weapons. John Velleco defends personal gun ownership as the "most effective means of self-defense available" because of a gun's level of intimidation and power when compared to being unarmed or being armed with a knife. Paul Bucher illustrates this point, "If the person you're fighting has a gun and all you have is your fists, you lose."
	Guns are used thousands of times more often for self-defense than to commit crime. The number of successful cases of guns being used for self-defense has been measured from a low 650,000 to a high 2.5 million using police records from around the country. This number far exceeds the cases of guns being used for crimes, and provides evidence that guns are a positive tool for self-defense. It would be best if all law-abiding citizens would own guns and know how to use them safely and responsibly. An America full of gun carrying citizens would drastically drive down crime rates simply because criminals would be too scared to come into contact with armed civilians. Also the few "moment of anger" shootings produced from escalated arguments would be far overshadowed by the number of people saved each year by the reduction in criminal shootings. The risk would not be worth the return, as every time a criminal would attempt to commit crime, they would have to face the high risk of being shot (Velleco).
	Gun laws do not accomplish their purpose; in fact, they do the opposite. 