A recent spate of violent crime has Beantown’s denizens on edge. Since ringing in the new year, 16 murders have been committed in Boston—six more than had been committed by this time last year. Young people with promising futures are having their lives snuffed out mercilessly by bullets discharged from anonymous assassins’ handguns. The oldest victim thus far: a 27 year-old male.

Until recently, I had scoffed at these murder figures and presumed the danger in Boston to be grotesquely overblown—a fictionalized byproduct of the mass media’s relentless drive to bolster ratings through breaking news. How can Puritan Boston possibly be dangerous if its only notoriously disreputable district, the combat zone, no longer even exists?

But then I visited Mumbai, India over Spring Break, and my previously myopic opinion on this issue evolved dramatically. The number of recent murders in the hub is unconscionable, and a drastic new approach must be taken to thwart future killings.

With over 18 million inhabitants, Mumbai has a population density four times that of New York City, and fully half of these inhabitants are homeless. Millions live in fetid, decaying slum metropolises without running water or electricity. Only rudimentary cinderblock and aluminum sheet dwellings protect these impoverished masses from monsoon rainfalls and a sweltering sun.

Words alone cannot possibly convey the degree to which experiencing such squalid slums assaults the senses. In fact, the first thing one notices is the vile smell; An unholy concoction of industrial pollution and human excrement languishing in the sun yields a nauseating odor.

It is also worth mentioning their frenzied, lawless nature. Packed into narrow dirt allies, people hawk food products while others manically bustle about, crates held upon their heads. Others lie on the roads, attempting to sleep amidst the chaos. Walking along these roads results in sensory overload as you are jostled to and fro, being incessantly badgered for rupees. Yet nowhere can be found a uniformed official attempting to maintain any semblance of order.

Compared to the ghastly living conditions of so many Mumbaikers, the housing projects in Mattapan are akin to mini-Taj Mahal’s. Hyperbole perhaps, but the point I am trying to make is that it would be reasonable to anticipate that Mumbai’s murder rate would far exceed Boston’s.

Mumbai’s mixture of extreme poverty and a lack of law enforcement should dictate this. Yet as of March 31, only 133 murders had been registered in all of Mumbai since New Years. This means that there has been one murder for roughly every 136,000 people this year, whereas Boston has had 16 murders in a city of under 600,000–roughly one murder for every 37,000 people. As hard as it is believe, you are over 3.5 times more likely to be murdered in the streets of Boston than in the slums of Mumbai. Just how is this possible?

It is as simple as a difference in attitudes towards guns. As in Western European countries, gun laws in the Indian state of Maharashta where Mumbai is located are quite strict. While it is technically possible to obtain a gun license, few are granted. Even Bollywood stars have been denied firearm licenses for protection in the past. As a result, guns in Mumbai have a negative stigma attached to them, not social cachet.

By contrast, American culture loves its guns. Guns are glorified not only in rap videos, but also by politicians pandering to their gun-obsessed electoral bases. In the last week alone, our former Governor W. Mitt Romney has been doing rhetorical somersaults, attempting to prove that his self-professed ardor for hunting is not a campaign hoax.

I’m no sociologist, but considering that the shootings in Boston have taken place in some of the city’s least affluent areas, there appears a direct correlation between poverty and violence here. The most destitute young Bostonians turn to guns and gangs out of desperation. Yet India’s impoverished seem far less likely to view these as viable options. Massachusetts may have some of the strictest gun control laws in the United States, but they are still more lax than those in Maharashta, and little is done to negate the pro-gun ethos of Boston’s youth.

Measures being taken to curb the violence by politicians today—from increasing the Boston police force by 60 troopers to allowing the red-bereted neighborhood watch group the Guardian Angels to return to Boston—are short term fixes at best. They do nothing to alter a cultural predisposition towards violent gun culture. Once the funding for increased trooper numbers dries up and the Guardian Angels skip town, the murder rate will again spike.

To effectively combat this violence in Boston over the long term, Massachusetts’ politicians should actively promote a culture of non-violence: Gun control laws as strict as those in Europe and Mumbai should be drafted—our “right to bear arms” should no longer extend to include the right to brandish lethal handguns. Politicians of all stripes, not only limousine liberals, must also publicly denounce guns, the National Rifle Association be damned. Finally, a comprehensive program denouncing violence and promoting pacifism should be implemented in Boston’s primary schools. After all, everyone can learn a thing or two from Mohandas Gandhi.

Stephen C. Bartenstein ’08 is a government concentrator in Lowell House. His column appears on alternate Mondays.