The Other End of the Barrel: The Side That Sees Correlation Between Gun Laws and Crime Rates
Sometimes it is not so easy to see the other side of an argument. In the case of correlation between gun laws and crime rates, there is another broad side that a light should be shown on. This side beleives t of those who are in favor of gun laws and believe that if implemented correctly, they can reduce crime rates. In the article, “The Research is Clear: Gun Control Saves Lives” the author, German Lopez, makes the claim that it is useful to look at the effects gun control policies have had on foreign countries. He uses Britain and Australia as examples. The results in these countries showed that gun murders and homicides might have decreased, but more people were being killed by other weapons such as knives and by blunt force trauma. The amount of mass shootings and killings in these nations was low compared to America’s. These gun laws might have stopped killings from guns, but individuals are still being killed by different means. This leads to the conclusion that foreign gun laws shouldn’t influence what Americas policy should be. Lopez also makes the claim that more guns lead to more deaths. Common sense allows us to assume the fact that if there are more guns present in a nation, then there will be more gun deaths. The US has the highest rate of gun ownership at 88.8 guns per 100 people. With more guns leaves more room for accidents along with a higher chance of crime. Since America has such an infatuation with firearms there are more possibilities for crimes and homicides. Being such a different style country from others who have guns, such as Australia and Britain, gun policies might prove useful in deterring crime and homicide rates resulting from firearms. However, it is difficult to test if these policies would work because the government is very strict when it comes to enforcing them.
In Brazil, researchers put much confidence in the positive results from gun control measures. New policies have been perceived as beneficial towards reducing the violence toll in Brazil. According to the article, “Reductions In Firearm-Related Mortality and Hospitalizations in Brazil After Gun Control,” firearm related mortality declined 8 percent from 2003 to 2004. More than a decade’s time had passed since an improvement like this had occurred. About 5,563 firearm related deaths had been avoided from these new legislations in 2004. The article advocates for these policies passed in the early 2000’s and provides evidence and data associated with the research. Brazil has one of the highest homicide rates and about one person is murdered every twelve minutes (Souza, Macinko, Alencar, Malta, Neto, 507). About 90% of all homicides that occur in the age group of 15-44 are carried out with a gun (Souza, 507). The homicide numbers in Brazil double those of the United States. However, this shows that Brazil is in a different situation than the U.S. The crime rates cannot be compared between the two nations, therefor gun laws would have completely different outcomes in both places. There is a higher amount of overall crime in Brazil than there is in the U.S. In addition more murders are carried out with a firearm in Brazil. This signifies that they have a much larger gun problem than the U.S does. The results of these gun laws might have proved successful in Brazil, but the outcome of these policies in the U.S would most likely be totally different due to cultural and societal differences.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/gun-control-washington-post. The research is clear: Gun control saves lives. Lopez, G, 4 October 2017. 30 October 2018.
“Reductions in Firearm-Related Mortality and Hospitalizations in Brazil After Gun Control.” UpDate: International Report. Maria de Fátima Marinho de Souza, James Macinko, Airlane Pereira Alencar, Deborah Carvalho Malta, and Otaliba Libânio de Morais Neto, March/April 2007. 15 October 2018.
2 thoughts on “Rebuttal — Kevinbacon”
Hey, Kevin, I may not have time to do a thorough feedback session for any one student’s Rebuttal argument this morning, but I’m trying to offer something to everyone. Let’s take a look at your overall argument.
To be an effective Refutation source, your author German Lopez will need some space to establish his argument, KB. You rush in to refute him moments after introducing his name, arguing that “other types of crimes” undermine his argument and that “the number of mass shootings” are too dissimilar to support an analogy. But we don’t even know what he’s claimed.
You say only: “it is useful to look at the effects gun control policies have had on foreign countries.”
And most likely it is. And when he does so, what does he discover? What startling numbers does he have to share? How does he make his comparisons? Does he discount the evidence himself, or does he insist that the comparison is pertinent between different countries? For that matter, is he even comparing Australia and Britain to America!? You haven’t told us that.
Consider devoting a paragraph to each of several specific claims by your selected “opposition” author, KB. Use quotations to ground us firmly in the position Lopez makes. Give him his due. Then take him down with your withering rebuttals. The effect will be much more impressive.
Your second refutation is unfocused. You appear to agree with Lopez that America’s gun ownership rate (close to one gun per person!) will naturally result in more gun death. Is your refutation that he’s right? Or is it that there’s nothing we can do about it? Or is it that America’s gun deaths are accidental, not criminal?
Technical Note. We don’t do this:
No parenthetical citations. Incorporate the author’s name or the article or publication into your own sentence.
Before we can compare the effectiveness of “gun laws” in Brazil and the US, Kevin, we need to know what the gun laws are. Britain and Australia have virtually eliminated personal possession of handguns. Is that what Brazil did? Is that what makes Brazil different from the US?
We need statistics from both countries too if you’re going to say they’re wildly dissimilar. What does “one of the highest homicide rates” mean, and where does the US appear in that comparison of countries? What percentage of US homicides are carried out with a gun? Radically fewer than 90%? We can’t know unless you tell us, so the comparison fails for lack of information.
You’re embarked on a perfectly good refutation strategy here, Kevin, the structure of which should work out fine with the right details and a lot of rigor in making comparisons. But you’re not there yet.
I’m going to bother someone else for a bit. Reply here and leave this post in Feedback Please. I’ll return when I’ve heard from you again..
The changes you’ve made to your first paragraph are much too minor to constitute a rewrite, KB. We don’t have any idea what Lopez actually said, and your reporting of his claims is far too vague to convince us that gun control laws would not reduce murder in the US. Did he really claim that because murders can be committed by hand the enactment of gun control laws had no effect on killings? If so, why is his article titled, “Gun Control Saves Lives”?
If Lopez truly is an effective Refutation argument, you’ll need to let him speak for himself.