A
bullet has a life of its own. Sometimes even enough to drive journalists to
lyricism.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Take this word-portrait by Los Angeles Times reporter Paul Dean:
“The bullet left the heart, went into the left lung and exited… [The] slug
stretched and displaced for milliseconds the heart muscles, valves, and
chambers, forming what trauma surgeons know as the ‘temporary cavity.’ It
created a temporary space the size of a baseball…”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย The description ended with two exit
wounds and a mute puddle of blood.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Dean was writing in 1990, and of
course a lot of blood has flowed over the dam since then. Not that there hasn’t
been progress.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Indeed, things are getting a little
better on the streets.
Like the
Rochester streets.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Over the last decade, our annual
total of homicides has declined substantially. The total for calendar 2002 was
41; in 1997, it was 61. There still are especially senseless tragedies, like
that of LaTesha Parson, 13, an innocent bystander gunned down last year in a
drive-by. But in his 1999 “State of the City” address, Mayor Bill Johnson could
justly boast that 1998 was “the first [year] since 1990 that the city of
Rochester experienced less than 50 homicides…”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Like any city, Rochester follows
wider trends. And homicides throughout this society have followed a trajectory
less immediately predictable than a bullet’s.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย A 2002 report from the federal
Bureau of Justice Statistics tracks the ups and downs between 1976 and 2000.
The US “homicide victimization” rate fell for most age brackets between 1980
and 1985. Then the rate climbed to a peak in the early 1990s. And then it fell
off gradually (though during recent harder economic times, there’s been an
uptick).
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย But if you’re calculating your
chances of being a homicide victim, a lot depends on your age bracket. Young
people, for example, accounted for most of the early 1990s spike in homicides,
and 18-to-24-year-olds were far and away the most common homicide victims, with
a rate of more than 25 per 100,000 population. That’s around five times the
rate for people age 50-plus during the same period. Moreover, the 50-plus
group’s victimization rate actually declined steadily, though not precipitously, between 1976 and 2000.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Then there’s the rate of offending.
Says the Bureau’s report: “Eighteen to 24-year-olds have historically had the
highest [homicide] offending rates, and their rates doubled from 1985 to 1993.
Since 1993, offending rates for 18-to-24-year-olds have declined but remain
higher than levels prior to the mid-1980s.” But it was the 14-to-17-year-olds
who stood out; their homicide offending rates, says the report, “exploded after
1985, surpassing the rates of 25-35-year-olds and 35-49-year-olds.”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย However you slice and dice the
trajectories, you find little reason for comfort. Even though homicide rates
have come down over the last decade or so, America has a serious homicide
problem, and this or that city gets pinned with the “Murder Capital” label.
Why are the
numbers so high, even when they’ve generally gotten lower?
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย People often remark that the United
States is a violent country. That’s unquestionable — even if you exclude externalized homicide, for example, a
long history of undeclared and, therefore, illegal wars and violent acts that
have claimed millions of victims. But on the home front, is American society
unusually or uniquely violent compared to the rest of the “developed” world?
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Other industrialized nations have
histories as violent as ours, or worse. Compare Germany in the 20th century.
And though Americans seem addicted to violent entertainment, they’re not alone.
Nobody takes a backseat to the Japanese in that arena, for example. Not long
ago, a Japanese film titled Ichi the
Killer — descended, by the way, from The
Simpsons’ “Itchy and Scratchy” sequences — raised eyebrows when it was on
the playbill of the Toronto Film Festival. “Extreme sado-masochist imagery
abounds,” said a Globe and Mail review, citing the ripping out of spinal cords and innards. Yet, says a 2001
report done for the UK Home Office (internal affairs in England and Wales),
Japan’s homicide rate from 1997 through 1999 was 1.04 per 100,000 population,
compared to 6.26 in the US; and for further comparison’s sake, 20.52 in Russia.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย When you look at the rates of
violent criminal activity overall, you find that the US is not necessarily out
of line with other nations.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย An initial caveat: International
comparisons are notoriously difficult to make — as are cross-jurisdictional
comparisons within individual
countries. The UK Home Office report put a finger on the central problem:
“Definitions of offences vary between countries both due to legal differences
and statistical recording methods.” For that reason, the report focused on trends
rather than absolutes.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Nonetheless, you can distill some
meaningful impressions from the copious data that government agencies have
gathered.
This is
evident from a 1998 US Bureau of Justice Statistics study, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales,
1981-96, jointly authored by a Bureau statistician and a University of
Cambridge scholar. Says the study: “Whether measured by surveys of crime
victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher
in the US than in England [and Wales].” In several categories, including
robbery, assault, and burglary, the rates in England-Wales were actually
higher, the study says.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย But the study also found that trends
here versus there have been quite different: For example, according to one
chart, the two countries had about the same rate for assault in the early
1980s, in the 10-12 range per 1,000 population. But the US assault rate was
tracking generally downward during the 1980s and 1990s, while the rate in
England-Wales was climbing. The stats for robbery showed similar tendencies.
During the period studied, the robbery rates in both the US and England-Wales
hovered between four and seven per 1,000 population. But neither country was
static; their rate-paths crossed in the early 1990s near the 6-per-1,000 mark,
with the US rate heading downward and the England-Wales rate going up.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย The UK Home Office study, which
compared countries as far-flung as South Africa and Austria, found the same
kind of thing when comparing violent-crime rates in the US and Canada. In 1999,
for example, the US total of “violence against the person, robbery, and sexual
offences” came to 1,430,690. In Canada, the total was 291,330. Adjusted for
population, both countries had rates below one percent, though the US rate was
higher — probably too slippery in any case for statistical certainty. The
rates in both countries also had headed downward during the late 1990s, by a
greater degree in the US than in Canada.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Such figures and trends seem to give
the lie to a point made in Michael Moore’s film Bowling for Columbine: that Canadians may be more civil than we
are. They certainly may be more progressive politically, per capita. But are
they inherently nicer? (And was Moore’s point another instance of cultural
stereotyping of Canadians, albeit a well-meant one?) The same questions must be
raised for the English and Welsh versus Americans.
But there’s
one category in which Americans truly “excel.”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย It’s homicide; in particular, the
sub-category of gun homicide.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย “The major exception to the pattern
of higher crime rates in England is the murder rate,” says the Bureau of
Justice Statistics report. “The 1996 US murder rate [was] vastly higher, nearly
six times, than England’s, although the difference between the two nations has
narrowed…”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Why? The report gives one big
reason: “Firearms are more often involved in violent crimes in the US than in
England. According to 1996 police statistics, firearms were used in 68 percent
of US murders but seven percent of English murders, and 41 percent of US
robberies but five percent of English robberies.”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย The Washington-based Violence Policy
Center did a study last year of firearm mortality rates in 11 countries. Not
surprisingly, the US was on top, with an overall firearm death rate of 13.7 per
100,000 population, versus 3.9 percent in Canada, 4.3 percent in Norway, 2.9
percent in Australia, and just 0.4 percent in England-Wales. Of course, guns,
and particularly handguns, are strictly controlled in the UK — and only four
percent of households possess firearms, versus more than 40 percent of
households in the US.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย What about our closest neighbor,
Canada, with which we share the “myth of the frontier” and other ambiguous
legacies? In Bowling for Columbine,
director Moore said Canadians own more guns than Americans do proportionally.
They certainly do own a lot of them. But Canada’s Coalition for Gun Control,
using US and Canadian government information, says that in 1998, the rate north
of the border was 0.25 guns per capita versus 0.82 per capita in the States.
And there’s a more important angle. The vast majority of guns in Canada, a
nation with many isolated communities and subsistence as well as sport hunters,
are rifles and shotguns.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย In regard to handguns — the
category most directly related to crimes against persons — the gulf between
Canada and the US is wider and deeper than Lake Superior. According to the
Coalition for Gun Control, Canada has 1.2 million handguns; the US has 76
million. (The US is also an inordinately large producer of handguns, which, as
Naomi Seligman of the Violence Policy Center says, are not covered by any
consumer safety regulations.)
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Here’s the Coalition’s conclusion:
“Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the US, particularly
with respect to handguns. In Canada, handguns have been licensed and registered
since the 1930s, ownership of guns has never been regarded as a right, and
several court rulings have reaffirmed the right of the government to protect
citizens from guns. Handgun ownership has been restricted to police, members of
gun clubs, or collectors. Very few — about 50 in the country — have been
given permits to carry handguns for ‘self-protection.’ This is possible only if
an applicant can prove that their life is in danger and the police cannot
protect [them].”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Similar restrictions apply in the
UK. Moreover, Canada just enacted tighter controls over hunting weapons, with
the aim of registering every firearm in the land. The new legislation, though,
has provisions for provincial “opt-out,” and Canada does have its own gun
lobby, so the last chapter on this hasn’t been written.
It seems most
advanced nations have taken a supply-side approach: Limit the number of guns in the
society and thus limit the mayhem angry, violent, desperate people can do to
others. (And to themselves: Seligman says that around 17,000 of America’s
almost 30,000 annual gun deaths are suicides.)
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Rochester Institute of Technology
criminologist John Klofas, studying local homicides in 2000-2001, found that
half of them were the result of “disputes” — “straight-out arguments,” he
says. Klofas notes, too, that nearly 70 percent of Rochester homicides have
involved guns. Moreover, he found in focus groups that a large number of people
in some high-homicide neighborhoods, perhaps a majority, have been carrying
guns, mostly “for protection.”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย The local data point to another
problem: the occurrence of gun crimes in our cities. And here again,
comparative data can be fatal to our self-perceptions. For example, says the UK
Home Office report, London, fabled home of soccer hooligans, suffered 190
homicides in 1999; that same year, the much smaller Washington DC had 241
homicides. And Washington’s total had steeply declined during the late 1990s.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย With guns so prevalent, and human
nature so volatile, Columbine-style massacres almost have to occur. But what
will be the national response? A good movie followed by National Rifle
Association sniping and legislators diving for cover?
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย It’s significant that Canada’s
recent moves toward greater control came after the infamous 1989 “Montreal
Massacre,” in which a crazed misogynist shot 14 women dead at the University of
Montreal’s Ecole polytechnique. Similarly, the British tightened up further
after the 1996 Dunblane Massacre (16 dead). And other nations, including
Australia, have responded appropriately to gun massacres of their own.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย So which will come first, America’s
response or the next Columbine?
This article appears in Jan 15-21, 2003.
