It may be argued that gun control regulations are not necessary because only law abiding citizens will follow rules and remain unarmed while law breakers and criminals will continue to own and use guns through illegal sources for offensive purposes like robbery and murder.
Supporters of individual rights to own gun for protection believe that increase in private use and ownership of gun for self-protection is an effective method to control homicide and gun violence because legal restrictions will be followed only by law abiding Americans and they would fall prey to law breakers (White p.2).
A national survey by John R. Lott reveal that 98 percent of the time individuals have used guns defensively to break off an attack. The positive results of gun use for defense such as carjacking being thwarted, prevention of robberies at automatic teller machines and the prevention of a number of robberies at stores and streets do not receive national coverage and the news covered by media include only encounters that culminate in a fatality (Lott (a) p.3).
The data from the Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey from 1979 to 1987 reveals that the probability of grave injury from an attack is two and half times greater for women with no resistance without a gun than when a women resist an attack using a gun. Further, the probability of serious injury is four times greater for women resisting without a gun than while resisting with a gun. Therefore, the best solution is to resist an attack with a gun and to remain passive without a gun. Men are also better secure with guns though the advantage is significantly lower. Passive behavior is 1.4 times more probable to lead to serious injury when compared to resistance with gun. Male victims, similar to females are at greater risk while resisting without a gun and the difference in the level of injury is lower (Lott (a) p.4).
Social scientists have arrived at solutions to some of the arguments about gun