‘After a Handgun Ban, the Death Rate Will Soar’

I challenge Mark K. Benenson’s claim (Editorial Pages, March 23), “After a Handgun Ban, the Death Rate Will Soar.” I am quite certain it will prove to be untrue.

Indeed, I have been proven correct in various parts of our country. In Washington, D.C., a law was passed banning the sale of handguns and, within three years, the overall murder rate there dropped 25%. Massachusetts’ Bartley-Fox handgun law produced an overall decrease in the homicide rate of 39%. As a result of South Carolina’s tightening of its handgun laws in 1975, the overall number of murders there decreased by 28%.

I’m quite certain that the statistics in other areas that have since banned handguns will hold true to that pattern. Almost needless to add, the decrease in the handgun murder rate in those areas did go down, but that’s not the issue here. What is relevant is that substantial decreases in the number of all murders were to be had when tougher handgun laws were passed--in areas where access to shotguns and rifles remained unchanged.

Rifles and shotguns presently account for nearly 80% of the firearms in this country, yet they are involved in less than 10% of firearms misuse. But handguns, making up only 20% of the U.S. firearms, are responsible for 90% of firearms misuse. It should be noted that the word “misuse” encompasses both criminal and accidental deaths.

And it should also be noted that the hardened, violent criminals interviewed in the survey to which Benenson refers do not necessarily constitute a majority of “misusers.” Seven out of 10 handgun deaths are between people who knew each other; a handgun bought for “protection” is 6 times more likely to kill its owner or a member of his/her family than it is to slay an intruder. Perhaps it is these would-be “protectors,” rather than hardened criminals, who should be surveyed. And perhaps these former “good guys” would say that, if they had been forced to use a less-convenient shotgun or rifle, their “crimes of passion” would not have occurred. And that sentiment might, if it could, be echoed by the thousands who have grabbed a handgun for their spur-of-the-moment suicides.

As one of the Jewish Democratic liberals to whom Benenson refers as feeling “betrayed” by Mayor Tom Bradley’s switch on the issue, I would like to add to that a feeling of profound disappointment. The latter stems not only from the specific issue in question, but also because a politician whom I deeply admired and respected has sacrificed his integrity--and that is sad. And for those who would be more pragmatic, this sacrifice was made for naught--and that is dumb.

Finally, I might add that it is not the “Jewish historical experience . . . of being shootees, not shooters” that has made me, as well as others, take this anti-handgun stance. No, Mr. Benenson, it is a cause--a cause which has, yes, traditionally been championed by Jews and by Democrats, but it is one espoused by all civilized peoples from the beginning of time. That cause is the preservation of human life.

SHERRY FALK

Los Angeles