Customer Reviews

Guns and Violence: The English Experience

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Americans I know tend to think of Britain as a peaceful, crimefree place. My British friends tend to think of America as a crime-ridden Hell. Statistical data published in the last couple of years, amusingly, reveals that they're both one hundred eighty degrees wrong. This book explores what happened on the British side of the pond.

Historically, of course, Britain has had low crime rates. One aspect of the story that Malcolm traces is the evolution of gun ownership (stimulated by invention and ever cheaper gun prices and restricted, over the course of the 20th century, by ever harsher government regulation)and the relationship of gun ownership to crime. The skinny is this: Britain had low crime rates as long as it had high levels of private gun ownership. As the state has made private ownership illegal, crime has skyrocketed.

Another strand Malcolm illuminates is the changing nature of British law enforcement. Britain only acquired policemen in the modern sense in the middle of the nineteenth century, under the leadership of Sir Robert Peel (hence the nickname "Bobbies"). Prior to that time, the general public was expected to -- and did -- assist in the apprehension of lawbreakers. The general public was, of course, armed to the teeth. And (see above) Britain had low crime rates.

But since the introduction of professional police, the British government has increasingly tried to grant itself a complete monopoly on the use of force. Not only has it progressively made private gun ownership illegal (no one here can own pistols anymore, and it's pretty difficult to get a permit to own a rifle, even for sport), it has also eroded, almost into nonexistence, the traditional British right to self-defense.

Witness the 1999 case of Tony Martin, a farmer in an isolated area whose home had previously been burgled. Two professional burglars broke into his home, and he shot them, killing one. Guess who got life imprisonment? That's right, the farmer.

Malcolm's writing is lucid and pleasant and her exposition thorough. ...

As some one who has lived in NYC for 12 years, and just returned from a year in England, I was astonished by how much more violent crime exists in that seemingly placid country. As Professor Joyce Malcom describes, robbery, burglary, assault and motor vehical theft in England have risen far higer (per 1000 population) than in the United States since the mid 1990s. This in spite of the fact that to minimize this shocking increase in violent crime, the British government has re-ordered the way crime statistics are collected. Car thefts are no longer investigated by Police; you call them to report a theft; they give you a report number for the insurance company. (A man called the police to report he was witnessing his car being stolen, and if they hurried over, they could catch the theft. They were "too busy.")

What is most fascinating about Prof. Malcolm's book is what you can read between the lines. The wilful blindness of anti-gun people has become so overwhelming, that it induces the most bizarre behavior in these otherwise intelligent people. As she amply demonstrates, it is just not possible to find ANY statistics put out by the anti-gunners that are not flawed, misleading, or just plain false. This strange belief has become an unquestioned religion to many, and opposition is not simply a different opinion, it is heresey. Malcom relates how in 1966 a gun shot 3 policemen with a handgun, causing the British Home Secretary Jenkins slap on the public a new ban on shotguns!! (Handguns were already illeagal.)

The book is rather long detailing the history of gun use in Great Britain, but the second half paints a surprising picture of the rapid decline of public safety in almost perfect sync with a draconian reversal of previously liberal gun laws. Malcom makes an interesting effort to compare US crime statisitics with those of England, but, given our culture where more than half the population own guns--this is often a stretch. Nevertheless, this book will certainly be the other shoe to the rancorous gun debate going on int he US, and should do much to buttress the fact that more guns do seem to result in less crime.

For anyone who is interested in the subject of gun control I heartily recommend "Guns and Violence: The English Experience" by Joyce Lee Malcolm. It is a scholarly and, to my American ears, dispassionate and comprehensive examination of the history and effects of English gun control efforts throughout the the centuries. In so doing, the authoress is not afraid to puncture many myths.

English police historically didn't need to carry guns because England was so peaceful? Well, not exactly... Actually, the reason English police were originally unarmed was because the idea of the government having a civilian police force at all was, literally, a revolutionary idea. There was, at that time, a real fear that the people would rise up in armed rebellion at the very thought of the government having a uniformed force that could be used against them. It was to relieve these fears that the police were expressly forbidden to carry firearms. But everybody else had guns! Don't believe me? Read Sherlock Holmes. The bad guys had guns. Dr. Watson had his old (privately purchased) service revolver. Holmes, who had no official standing whatsoever, had a revolver. The only ones who didn't have guns were the Metropolitan Police (although Inspector Lestrade was often known to illegally carry a pistol).

England is remarkably free of violent crime? It was indeed . . . at the end of the Nineteenth century! However, at that time, guns were widely available and commonly carried by the population at large. So much so that, when a gang committed the unheard of crime of armed robbery in London, the unarmed Police were able to borrow four pistols from passersby in order to give chase to the bandits. Since this period was the most peaceful and crime free era in English history I suppose we should, by typical anti-gun logic, immediately disarm all police forces in the United States.

Going back to the Middle Ages, England had higher levels of violence before firearms were invented. At the same time that firearms were slowly introduced, levels of violent crime gradually fell to an all time low. The authoress doesn't propose a one to one correlation here, as there are too many other possible factors to make this claim (although I suspect there is more of a connection here than the book is willing to state). But clearly, the increasing proliferation of firearms cannot be said to have created a corresponding increase in violence.

The beginning of the 20th century saw both gradual increases of restrictions on firearms ownership, and increases in violent crime. The end of the last century saw a complete ban on private possession of firearms, and a virtual explosion in the rate of violent crime immediately following that ban. Today England, Wales and Australia have the tightest restrictions on firearms of any Western Democracies. Guess which three Western Democracies have the highest violent crime rates? Go on, you'll never guess (hint: today you are eight times more likely to be a victim of violent crime in London than you are in Detroit or Chicago).

But what I found most appalling is that England today has everything that the anti-gun crowd has ever asked for (and is still trying to get here in the USA). Complete registration of all firearms, followed not long after by the complete confiscation of all firearms (the latter effort being remarkably unsuccessful, as most firearms were never turned in, and the supply of illegal guns has never shown even the slightest indication of drying up). When all privately held firearms were finally banned, the rate of gun crimes jumped up immediately and is still climbing. English private citizens are currently forbidden to carry not just firearms, but literally anything that could be used as a weapon for self-defense (after all, if we don't do anything to make the nice criminals mad, they won't hurt us. Alas, the criminals have not shown any tendency to co-operate in this non-aggression pact). People who have defended themselves have been more severely prosecuted than those who attacked them.

England today is a an anti-gunner's dream come true. But it is increasingly becoming a nightmare for those living in that gun-free Utopia. In spite of official efforts to downplay the statistics and under report the "official" numbers of crimes, the truth is becoming so obvious that it cannot be denied. If you're arguing with somebody about gun control, then you don't need to make any claims about what you think might happen if the people are disarmed. England has provided us with living proof of what does happen when law-abiding people are unable to defend themselves. And also what happens when uninformed voters rely on the government to protect them instead of standing up for the right to protect themselves.

This book was recommended to me by Chris Bird, author of The Concealed Handgun Manual. Malcolm's contribution is a highly readable history of violence in Great Britain and it's nearly inverse association with firearm availability. It is worth the read just for the history and fascinating details like what generated the cliche "read the Riot Act" and why English police have historically not carried firearms. This book nicely complements the works of John Lott, Jr in demonstrating why gun control makes great rhetoric and political demagoguery but lousy, counterproductive policy. I wish it were available in electronic format so I could load it into my pocket PC for immediate availability when I have occasion to debate liberals and their unfortunate, misguided victims.

As a non-gun owner, I have long been bemused by the passions aroused by the gun rights advocates and the disarmament crowd. This is a 'useful bit of cinnamon', to quote Kierkegaard, for that debate. Ms. Malcolm does not overtly editorialize, but allows her facts to present themselves. Anyone who is serious about learning about the effects of guns on violent crime rates would be well advised to read this. The fanatics on either side will not find this comfortable reading.

I first got interested in this subject because I'm a British ex-pat who moved to Texas a few years ago. Although I've lived in suburban areas of similarly sized cities in both countries, the lack of crime in Texas was startling compared to my native Britain.

Joyce goes into the detail of how the right to bare arms orginated in England and is the ancestor of the American 2nd amendment. She then goes on to explain how Britons gradually gave up that right by successive parliamentary laws. She details how the laws were passed on the basis of "rising crime" even though they were not and that Britain never really had a serious crime problem.

In a nutshell, Britons have been lied to by successive governments (and press sensationalism) over the last few decades and persuaded to give up their arms and let the state have a monopoly on "protecting" them. For example, 100 years ago, carrying of pistols by Britons for self-defence was not only allowed but was common place - it was a "right" enshrined in the 1689 Bill of Rights. An Englishman's home truly was his castle and crime rates were incredibly low.

100 years later, handguns are banned and carrying of any kind of weapon is unlawful (the concept of "self-defence" or "self-help" has effectively been "bred" out of modern day Britons - in fact the concept is now quite "absurd" to them). Yet the crime rates are spiralling out of control and they are scratching their heads wondering if they should now be banning kitchen knives!

The only thing I think was missing from this piece of work was a thorough mention of the laws in Northern Ireland because in that part of the UK apparently it is still legal to own handguns for self-defence or "personal protection" as they put it. Yet the crime rate in NI is much lower than in Great Britain where this concept is now alien to the population.

Joyce Lee Malcolm is a Professor of History at Bentley College. The Victorian era in England had a low rate of violent crime despite numerous social problems and no control on guns (`Acknowledgments'). The `Introduction' mentions the assumption that the number of guns equates with the frequency of armed crimes (p.1). This assumption can be tested against the known facts. England has records on crime and licensed firearms for over 130 years (p.3). Until 1920 the laws on guns were similar in England and America (p.4). One problem is the unreliability of crime statistics (p.12). The crime rate was adjusted to meet the police budgets (p.12)! [This book does a great job in explaining the English experience. It could be better organized and edited.]

Chapter 1 discusses crimes of violence in the Middle Ages. Most murders occurred on a Sunday (p.31). Economic hardship led to increased violence (p.33). Chapter 2 tells about the Tudor-Stuart centuries. Gun prohibition was enacted as a hunting ban (p.53). The Glorious Revolution led to the Bill of Rights (p.58). The 18th century saw the creation of hundreds of capital crimes such as the Riot Act (Chapter 3). The almost continuous foreign wars led to less crime (p.77); peace led to more crime (p.78). The 19th century saw a record low of violent crime with a high level of firearm ownership (p.92). The creation of a professional police force with great powers was one reason for a dramatic decline in serious crimes (p.115). Monarchies had strict prohibitions on firearms, republics had liberal laws (p.126). World War I saw new dictatorial powers that limited basic rights - the Defence of the Realm Act (p.139). The Firearms Act of 1920 eliminated the right of individuals to be armed. There was fear of major strikes and a Bolshevik Revolution. The right to arms was changed into a privilege (p.149).

Armed and violent crime was exceedingly low when firearms were easily available. Armed citizens helped to keep the peace. Then things changed. Self-defense and the duty to protect others, part of the common law, is now banned (p.173). Political repression (p.175)? Using a toy gun for self-defense against burglars in your home is a crime (p.184). Fifty years of gun prohibition led to higher crime rates (p.218). England had little violent crime when there were no firearm restrictions (p.219). The reporting of crime affects the statistics (p.230), as does the recording (p.231).

The murder rate in America from knives alone is twice the English murder rate for all weapons (p.231). Malcolm gives rates on a racial basis but not on an economic or wealth basis. America's murder rate is higher than European countries, but much lower than in Mexico and other countries with rigorous gun control (p.234). Murders usually occur in cities where there is gun control (p.234). Rural areas have the highest gun ownership rates and the lowest crime rates (p.235). Owning a gun would not cause death for a family member; most adult murderers have prior felony records (p.236). Juvenile murderers also have criminal backgrounds. Malcolm explains what the phrase "known to the murderer" actually means (p.238). Twice as many children drown in bathtubs than from gun accidents (p.239). Guns are useful for protection, they can stop an attack of prevent an injury (p.240). These are rarely reported to the police (p.241). The Brady Act required a background check before a gun sale; the number or rapes and aggravated assaults increased afterwards (p.248). The effect of nondiscretionary concealed weapon laws was to deter crimes (p.244). They saved lives, reduced rapes, assaults, and robberies (p.247).

In a nutshell:

From the end of the Napoleonic Wars till 1870 or so, there was basically no gun control in England. During this time, the crime rate dropped steadily, in all categories. Anyone, including criminals and the insane, could buy any type of firearm they wanted.

From 1870 till 1920, various bureaucrats tried to get gun control instituted. Aside from a few minor taxes, they failed. Crime continued to drop.

From 1920 till today, there have been ever increasing bans on guns in Britain. The rate of all crimes has risen throughout the past 85 years.

[Sarcasm] Undoubtedly, this is just a coincidence, or a pack of lies. It must be true that guns cause crime. Important people say so, and they are infallible, aren't they?[/Sarcasm]

If you have an open mind, you'll learn a lot from this book. But on the subject of guns, most people don't have open minds. Pity.

Very well researched, Joyce Lee Malcolm goes into a reasonable level of detail on the evolution of gun control laws of England to show how that country went from a peaceful, armed society to one with high rates of violent crime amidst a disarmed citizenry. The book is especially interesting because anti-gun groups love to compare the lower British homicide rate with the rate of the U.S. in order to suggest that England is more "peaceful" because of its strict anti-gun laws. But this comparison is dubious, first because the overall rate of violent crime in England is higher than in the U.S.; second because of differences in the composition of the populations; third because England is an island--where presumably smuggling would be easier to deter--while the U.S. has endless borders north and south. So if this comparison is dubious, why not compare England with England itself, i.e., England of loose gun control laws with England of strict gun control laws? This is where this book comes in. True, one may claim that not just gun laws changed in the period in question. But we are not talking centuries here; the dramatic changes in gun laws in England happened within the 20th century. I highly recommend this book, especially to those who appreciate the right to self-defense but who often find themselves out of intellectual ammunition in a conversation about gun-control. If you are very interested in this topic, get also: 'More Guns, Less Crime', 'The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy' and 'That Every Man Be Armed'.

This book was one of a pair I received recently that dealt with gun issues. The other was a poorly-written rabidly paranoid tract called Guns Save Lives. Malcolm's book, while not great, is a vast improvement over the other one.

In this book, Malcolm traces the history of the use of firearms in England and how they related to crime rates. Her thesis is that gun ownership has little if any negative effect on crime and in fact may make things safer. She compares and contrasts the policies and crime rates of England and the United States and finds the U.S. policies more effective.

As a history, this book is pretty good, but Malcolm fluctuates between objective history and subjective opinion piece. As a result, it often seems that she is fitting her history to support a specific conclusion. While she is reasonably objective overall, there are places where she uses gaps in historical information (particularly in medieval times) to draw certain inferences that fit with her ideas and either ignores or glosses over other interpretations.

The final part of her book, the England/America comparison is the most opinionated. Unfortunately, as she herself illustrates, the crime statistics of the two countries are like apples and oranges, which limits (although does not completely eliminate) the effectiveness of her arguments.

Overall, this book probably rates three-and-a-half stars: it is not great, but not bad either. If you find this subject interesting as history, it may be a good read as long as you understand that it has a definite slant that you may or may not agree with. On the other hand, if you are looking for a book on the subject of gun rights/gun control, this book may also be good; even though some of the arguments Malcolm raises are on the weak side, she does raise some thought-provoking issues.