GOPs pay back NRA, crime wins

last week's headlines on the rising violent crime rate shouldn't get dismissed as a minor blip on the radar screen. gun crime [nonfatal, fatal] has gone up sharply for two straight years after declining for an unprecedented eleven straight.

the in-denial NRA leadership will try to explain away two facts: the long drop began immediately after passage of the brady gun-control bill in november 1993, while the new upswing started right after the gop congress reciprocated NRA support by letting the assault weapon ban expire in september 2004.

the spin will likely come at least partly thru the same fallacious arguments they've used in the past, like the car analogy, guns-prevent-crime claims, the guns-don't-kill-people/people-do slogan, the claim that people who want to kill and can't get a gun will use some other weapon, and state/federal comparisons, so let's look at them plus the gun-nuts' world-government phobia and fears they'll lose their precious firearms.

first, how can the higher number of deaths and injuries caused by cars show no need for gun control, since motor vehicles and their use are heavily regulated because they're so dangerous? before i can drive i must pass a physical exam, a vision test, a written test, and a driving test. then i get a license i must renew every few years. to own a vehicle i have to register it with the state, display a numbered plate on it, get it inspected annually, and buy liability insurance every year. when driving or even parking i must comply with a long list of laws and ordinances and must avoid use of various substances. if i fail to comply, i can get fined &/or jailed &/or lose my license to drive &/or have my car impounded temporarily or permanently, depending on the nature of the infraction and my past record. all that even if i never hurt anyone or try to. show me where gun regs are anywhere near as strict. furthermore, only a tiny percentage of injuries and deaths caused by motor vehicles are intentional. with guns the reverse is true: the number of accidents is very small compared to assaults and suicides. it's simply a false analogy. there is no valid comparison.

second, the gun lobby cites statistics derived from cases of gun owners who say they've prevented crimes by using or displaying their weapons. well, maybe they're right, but so what? gun control isn't for infringing arms rights of law-abiding citizens: it's to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mental cases. why does the NRA say the opposite?

third, are guns or people the killers? seriously, they're just playing with words here. of course people kill. it's as irrelevant as the above argument on crime prevention. what matters is that guns make people far more effective killers than the weapons used in nearly all other homicides. those weapons more effective than guns are either highly regulated or totally illegal except in warfare.

fourth, along similar lines is the idea that killers will find other weapons if they can't get guns. yes, some will, but the crime rates show most won't kill at all. when homicide rates fell from 1994 thru 2004, nearly all the downturn was in gun homicides. the graph of killings with other weapons is nearly flat.

[to be continued]