One could make the argument that stricter gun control laws will make society safer. That a decrease in crime, injury and death will make society safer. Now let us assume that hostile individuals seeking to commit crimes or harm others often use a gun to carry out their destructive objectives. One could argue that gun control laws would prevent hostile individuals from acquiring guns, and if we assume that these individuals would be less of a threat if they did not have a gun, then stricter gun control laws would make society safer. Now, let us assume that less strict gun control laws would result in more people carrying guns. It would then result in more criminals carrying guns because they feel that this is a necessary measure in order to adequately defend themselves from vigilante justice. If we say that more people and criminals carrying guns would result in more frequent gun-related deaths and injuries, then stricter gun control laws would again result in a safer society. Guns can be mishandled by their owners, which may result in the injury or death of the gun :owner or an unsuspecting, innocent individual. Statistics show that there is a correlation between the laxity of a country's gun laws and its suicide rate. Let’s say that individuals would be less successful in committing suicide if they did not have access to a gun, and that stricter gun control laws will make guns more difficult for individuals to obtain, and then stricter gun control laws would make society safer. So, by the previous logic, stricter gun control laws would result in a safer society.
Others argue less strict gun control laws will make society safer. Since we know that law enforcement personnel are not always able to adequately defend society from hostile forces in a timely or effective manner, we can conclude that a society that has law enforcement as its sole source of defense is not in fact adequately protected. Therefore, other means of defense must be provided to society's...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document