Reader Feedback 2.12.03

Guns down, crime up?

I enjoyed Jack Bradigan Spula’s “Crime: The Means and
the Ends” (January 15). Whether I find myself agreeing or disagreeing with
the positions he takes in his essays, I always find them thought-provoking and
well worth reading.

                  I
thoroughly agree with his rejection of overly simplistic international
comparisons of gun crime rates. As he indicated, there are far too many legal,
cultural, and historical variables. Perhaps it would be better to observe crime
trends in the same country before and after gun control laws are either
strengthened or weakened. You mentioned how Australia “responded
appropriately” after a gun massacre. And what was that response, and its
results?

                  Australia
confiscated 640,381 firearms at a cost of $500 million. (That could buy a lot
of school lunches.) One year later, what were the results? Australia-wide:
homicide, up 3.2 percent; assaults, up 8 percent; armed robberies up 44 percent. And this jump comes on
the heels of 25 years of decreases in armed-robbery rates.

                  In Victoria,
gun homicides were up 300 percent. What else could have caused these figures to
change in one year, if not the gun-control laws?

                  England
has seen a sharp rise in crime since practically banning the private ownership
of long guns — particularly in home invasions.

                  I
have yet to hear a gun-control advocate’s explanation for this unprecedented
jump, but would sincerely like to. Could someone please explain to me how these
confiscation programs are supposed to work? Are murderers and drug dealers supposed
to say, “Oh shucky-darn; now I have to go to the police station and turn
in my unregistered pistol?”

                  Criminals,
by definition, break the law. What type of people turn in their firearms? Only
law-abiding legal possessors, who aren’t the people who commit the crimes. And
when they do that, does it not assure the social predators that they will be
able to continue their activities with even greater chance of success and
safety? Seems like a common-sense explanation for what happened in Australia
and England.

                  How
do the 20,000 gun-control laws currently on the books stop criminals, who
circumvent them all when they obtain their weapons illegally? Does it not only
prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to choose to defend themselves?

                  I’m
not trying to be a smart-aleck here, I genuinely want to hear what the gun
control advocates have to say. Maybe you can set me straight!

                  Keep
up the great articles.

                  John LeDoux, Scottsville Road, Scottsville

Jack Bradigan Spula contrasts the gun/crime rates in England
and the US but neglects a few relevant facts. Currently, the rate of break-ins
for occupied homes in even “nice” neighborhoods in the UK is nearly one-third.
It is rough if you are the occupant of that flat. In many parts of the US, even
dumb crooks avoid occupied homes, since they fear the homeowner with a shotgun.

                  Spula
would likely prefer permits for all firearms despite the fact that permit
systems are inherently unequal. The defenders of the Warsaw Ghetto used a rare
flintlock since they, as Jews, could not legally own firearms. (I personally
know the son of an Auschwitz survivor who has a Remington shotgun at his rural
cabin because the local police are nearly 40 minutes away.) In Indiana, a widow
in a rough neighborhood was denied a pistol permit by her local police force
because she was felt to be “white trash.”

                  (Canandian
news sources report that the nation’s new mandatory licensing program for all
firearms may have a $1 billion cost overrun. This will continue, supporters
say, regardless of the opposition of two provincial governments and senior
police officials, who admit that criminals hardly ever register their guns.)

                  Spula
is like Rosie O’Donnell, who wants to outlaw firearms for others but needs an
armed bodyguard because she is a celebrity. The message is simple: The lives
and families of ordinary people are worth %$* (expletive deleted).

                  Mr.
Spula generally champions people seen as downtrodden. I guess the $400 license
fee in Nassau County for a pistol permit doesn’t bother him. Can’t have those
lower orders thinking they have worthwhile lives, can we? I would add that many
legal scholars regard the Second Amendment as a guarantee of First Amendment
rights.

                  Mark N. Russell, Howland Avenue, Rochester

                  Jack Bradigan Spula responds: Thanks to
LeDoux for the kind words. Unfortunately, the compliments bookend some dubious
material, including data identical to what’s found in a probable “urban
legend.”

                  Gun
Control Australia spokesperson Randy Marshall calls this legend “the infamous
‘Hi Yanks’ memo,” though it sometimes is addressed “Hi Yanks and Canucks.” It’s
signed by supposed Australian police officer Ed Chenel; my searches failed to
turn up anything on him. Some of the statistics are off: Take the $500 million
allocation. First, that was in Australian dollars, so the outlay was something
like $340 million at the current exchange rate. A report last fall in The Australian (Sydney) pegged the final
cost at $320 million.

                  And
it was money well spent. Gun Control Australia, using data from the Australian
Bureau of Statistics, says that between 1988 and 1998, total annual gun deaths
declined significantly, though admittedly with some ups and down early on.
There was a big drop between 1996, the year the buyout began, and 1998 — from
521 gun deaths to 327. The biggest factor was the decline in gun suicides, but gun homicides also
dropped. Officials say the real payback will be realized over many years.

                  I’m
not sure where Russell got his factoid about the UK’s break-in rate of “nearly
one-third.” The UK Home Office pegged the overall household burglary in England
and Wales at 3.4 percent in 2000. Households with income under £5,000 —
definitely downscale — had a burglary rate of 4.3 percent; the rate for
“areas with high levels of physical disorder” had a rate of 7.9 percent.
Presumably the “nice” neighborhoods fared better.

                  About
Canada’s new legislation: Though rightwing opposition is building, there’s no
“$1 billion cost overrun.” Last December, Ottawa’s auditor general said total costs could climb to $1 billion
Canadian (around $650 million US), offset by $140 million Canadian returned
through registration fees. Originally the program was to have cost $119
million, with $117 million back through fees. Yes, there’s an overrun, but at most
it amounts to half of what Russell suggested. And again, it will be money well
spent.

                  The
case against O’Donnell is not proved. Stories clogged the usual internet
gun-sites after O’Donnell’s bodyguard (hired to protect one of her kids,
incidentally) applied for a concealed-weapon permit. O’Donnell said later she
wouldn’t have an armed guard around the child. But it’s important to remember
why she hired a guard in the first place: because of threats she received after
criticizing the gun culture post-Columbine, and taking on NRA booster Tom
Selleck. And oh yes, the homophobes — among them many gun patriots, armed and
dangerous — hate her guts too.

The board’s divide

“The Great Divide: Behind the School Board Anger” (January
8) is an interesting, and for the most part accurate, analysis of the
escalating madness that’s occurring among Rochester Board of Education members.
However, the article contains some statements that merit close scrutiny.

                  For
example, if national trends are indicators, the ongoing, deep-seated
dysfunction on the board will not necessarily make it harder to attract a new
superintendent. This is not the first time the Rochester district, like many
other urban school districts, has had to hire a new superintendent in the
middle of a leadership crisis. The Rochester district hired a nationally known
superintendent, Dr. Laval Wilson, under very similar conditions.

                  Besides,
let’s be honest: Considering the enticing salary and perks that come with the job,
there are plenty of acceptable candidates who won’t hesitate to lay their
credentials on the table.

                  Working
under adverse circumstances has long been routine for many urban
superintendents. Additionally, such individuals usually do their homework. Candidates
will know it’s likely that the new superintendent will have a school board
substantially different than the current one.

                  Second:
In the article, board member Joanne Giuffrida says board members “have to
all be careful that the board is not emasculated again.” That implies that
someone deprived the board of power. Unless they willingly coalesce, how can
anyone take the bosses’ power away?

                  Over
the past few years, this is exactly what happened. All of the board members sat
back silently and allowed Superintendent Clifford Janey — initially under the
advisement of Mayor Johnson (before Janey stopped listening to the mayor) —
to pretty much run the district, with little to no oversight, and certainly no
public opposition. In short, board members got caught up in the
anti-micromanagement frenzy, and abdicated their responsibilities.

                  Third,
regarding the board’s “access to information and the media”: This is
not something that is newly acquired. Board members have always had access to
the media. If some board members are now “willing to speak up about
things,” that’s probably a matter of political expediency, desperation,
and perhaps revenge.

                  Lastly,
“public discussion on the future of the school district” is not
dependent on current board members’ ability to get past their “personal
animosity.” Those of us seeking to replace them, along with a number of
formidable community advocates and leaders, intend to make sure of that. The
deepening leadership crisis dictates that serious, open, community-wide discussion
relative to the future of the Rochester school district must take place, and it
will.

                  Howard Eagle, Rochester (Eagle is a
candidate for the Rochester School Board.)

Gay Nicholas?

Ever since Jon Popick has been included in City as a reviewer of movies alongside
the incomparable George Grella, I have tried to accept cheerfully his
presentations, despite the irrelevancies he often includes. But in his recent
review of Nicholas Nickleby (January
8), one simply cannot forgive the tainting of a wonderful story, exquisitely
told, by Popick’s unwarranted rant in which he pretends to perceive the
injection of a gay theme where none exists and which no one of sane and
balanced mind would see. Whatever his personal motivations, Popick’s remarks
were fraudulent and therefore unjust to all viewers of this great film, gays
and straights alike.

                  John Gerard, Culver Parkway, Rochester

                  Jon Popick’s response: While Mr. Gerard
and I both agree it was a great film, there’s absolutely no way anybody who has
seen Nicholas Nickleby can deny that
the film contains some pretty major gay undertones. Or maybe they were just
napping during those scenes, like the ones involving Nathan Lane’s character
being married to a woman played by a man, or those depicting the obvious and
immediate attraction between Nicholas and Smike. The campy Nickleby made a typical episode of Oz look like the Republican National Convention.

                  Then
again, a large percentage of the country was actually surprised when Rosie
O’Donnell came out of the closet, so it’s probably wrong to assume everyone has
the necessary “gaydar” to pick up on that kind of thing (they’re the
same group who think Liberace died a bachelor because he never found the right
girl to marry).

A people denied

The Israeli government is guilty of the destruction of the
Palestinian Arab people. Using financial and military help from the US, the
present government of Israel is devoted to making it impossible for any viable
Palestinian state to come into existence.

                  The
Prime Minister of Israel is a war criminal who should be brought before the
International Tribunal at the Hague. I do not condone the killing of innocent
people by anyone, be they Arabs or Israeli Jews. But I see on a daily basis
Israel’s attempt to deny the Palestinian Arabs any possible chance for a normal
life.

                  Anyone
who thinks I am anti-Semitic should know that I come from a family of strong
Jewish values, and my feelings spring from my deep sense of Jewish ethics,
which I will believe in to my last breath.

                  Concerning
Iraq: Iraq is not a threat to the United States. The United States is wrong to
try to shape the world in its perceived image. The US wants the oil of Iraq.
The US government should hold its head in shame for not helping solve the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict in an honest and non-partisan manner.

                  The
greatest way to stop terror is to have a just foreign policy.

                  Jack Disraeli, Norris Drive, Rochester

Writing to City

We welcome and encourage readers’ letters for publication.
Send them to: themail@rochester-citynews.com or The Mail, City Newspaper, 250
North Goodman Street, Rochester 14607.

                  Our
guidelines: We don’t publish anonymous letters — and we ask that you include
your street name and city/town/village. While we don’t restrict length, letters
of under 350 words have a greater chance of being published. We do edit letters
for clarity and brevity. And in general we don’t publish letters (or longer
“op-ed” pieces) from the same writer more often than once every three months.

This article appears in Feb 12-18, 2003.