Guns and Violence: The English Experience

by Joyce Lee Malcolm

Book Overview

Behind the passionate debate over gun control and armed crime lurk assumptions about the link between guns and violence. Indeed, the belief that more guns in private hands means higher rates of armed crime underlies most modern gun control legislation. But are these assumptions valid? Investigating the complex and controversial issue of the real relationship between guns and violence, Joyce Lee Malcolm presents an incisive, thoroughly researched historical...

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0674007530
• ISBN13: 9780674007536
• Release Date: May 2002
• Publisher: Harvard University Press
• Length: 340 Pages
• Weight: 1.25 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.3" x 5.8" x 8.5"

Customer Reviews

Gun Control Laws in England and Their Consequences

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'.

Informative and Thought Provoking

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.

Excellent study of the failure of Gun Control

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 t

Thought provoking

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.

What Happened to the Peaceful Kingdom?

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. ...