Guns and Violence: The English Experience

Rating:
Summary: Not Very Factual
Review: After the gun ban in England the UK police changed their system for recording crime. This made it falsely appear that the crime rate had gone up according to statistics based on police reports. The British Crime Survey, another measure of crime in the UK, was unaffected by these changes in recording crime. According to the British Crime Survey, crime in Britain has actually gone down quite a bit since the gun ban. This is not to say that the gun ban caused the decrease in crime. A decrease in crime can be caused by other factors. However, it does reveal that the author failed to sufficiently research the topic.

Rating:
Summary: What Happened to the Peaceful Kingdom?
Review: 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. ...

Rating:
Summary: Thought provoking
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: The other shoe drops
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: The other shoe drops
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Imperfect but generally good
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Not Very Factual
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Debunking gun control
Review: 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.