From Publishers Weekly
Given the breathtaking sweep of the material and the prodigious scholarship the author displays in his detailed discusson of civil liberties, police powers, law and national character with respect to guns in Japan, Great Britain, Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, Jamaica and the United States, it's surprising and disappointing when, in conclusion, he lamely argues that the best things Americans can do about guns here are eliminate controls and require classes in marksmanship and safety for all gun owners. Kopel, a Denver lawyer, associate policy analyst with the Cato Institute and a technical consultant to the International Wound Ballistics Association, brilliantly delineates the ways in which each nation's unique history has determined how it deals with guns. He defends vigilantism as all-American and necessary, praises the Guardian Angels, claims that many southern civil rights workers of the 1960s were armed and argues that guns are ubiquitous in the inner cities because people need them. He won't convince everyone, but he offers a lot to ponder.
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc.
From Library Journal
Having carefully reviewed gun control policies in Japan, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, and Switzerland, Kopel argues, quite accurately, that none provides a useful model for reducing the American crime rate. He concludes that because guns cannot be eradicated, a policy that promotes responsible gun use is more likely to prevent gun misuse. Unfortunately, Kopel spends too much time setting up straw persons at both the anti- and pro-gun extremes and then knocking them down. For a more balanced discussion of the same complicated problem, see The Gun Control Debate: You Decide ( LJ 2/1/91). Not recommended.
- John Broderick, Stonehill Coll., North Easton, Mass.Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc.
See all Editorial Reviews