Bearing Arms, Keeping the Peace

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Whenever I meet up with my English friends, the talk turns to the differences between our countries. At least once in the course of an evening I’m informed that Americans are gun-toting, violent yahoos, whereas jolly old England has “developed” into a peaceful oasis. From now on, rather than argue, I’m just going to pull out a copy of Joyce Lee Malcolm’s “Guns and Violence” (Harvard, 340 pages, $28) and pass it around among my smug, though lovable, friends.

When the state protects its citizens, do they still need to protect themselves?

Behind their claims, of course, is the assumption that guns encourage illegal violence. Give people more guns, goes the theory, and there will be more crime. Thus European countries legislate heavily against gun ownership.

But recently an opposing theory has gained traction. It holds that having more guns in private hands will deter criminals and actually cut back on crime. It is this logic that is behind the laws in 33 American states that now allow citizens to carry concealed weapons.

Ms. Malcolm, a professor of history at Bentley College in Waltham, Mass., has decided to test these two approaches to crime and guns, and she does it in part by comparing the experiences of the U.S. and England. The two countries, at least until relatively recently, shared similar views of gun rights. But whereas modern England has the most restrictive gun laws of any democracy and a reputation for low rates of violent crime, the U.S. has relatively permissive gun laws and a reputation for high crime rates.

But are these reputations earned? Once Ms. Malcolm sorts through the statistics, government records, court documents and other evidence, a different picture emerges. It’s not one that my English friends will much like.

Most of Ms. Malcolm’s book deals with the English case. She begins her survey in medieval times, when England was a nasty and violent place — and there weren’t many guns. People killed each other with whatever was at hand — knives, pitchforks, rocks — and at high rates.

It was only under the Tudors and Stuarts, precisely when guns became common, that England’s violent crime rates began to decline. Homicide rates in 13th-century England were twice as high as those in the 16th and 17th centuries. It was at this time, too, that the English codified their gun rights. In 1685, King James II, a Catholic, began using game laws to disarm the nation’s Protestants. When James fled and William and Mary came to the throne in 1689, the Convention Parliament presented them with a Bill of Rights that included a right to bear arms. That right remained in place for hundreds of years. The English continued to buy and own guns, and crime rates continued to fall.

The sea change came in the mid-19th century. The freedom-loving English had always been wary of a professional police force; civil order was kept by local communities. But industrialization brought unrest and the fear of revolution, and the government was eager to have more control. By 1856, every county and city was required to have a police force. By 1870, the government had begun attempting to regulate firearms. The idea was that, with the state now protecting citizens, they didn’t need to protect themselves.

The 1920 Firearms Bill really kicked off England’s regulation drive, and it has been going strong ever since. Today most guns are restricted, and handguns are banned outright. This is where Ms. Malcolm’s book becomes particularly fascinating. Because ever since England started severely regulating guns in the middle of the 20th century, its rates of violent crime have been on the rise.

The situation has become so bad that, according to 1995 figures, the English are now at far greater risk of assault, burglary and robbery than Americans. Figures for rape and homicide are still higher in the U.S., but they have been sharply declining since 1992, whereas England’s rates have been rising. It turns out that disarming the public, along with other dubious crime policies, leaves “little to deter the criminal,” Ms. Malcolm writes. “Armed crime, never a problem in England, has become one.”

Compare this state of affairs with conditions in the U.S., the subject of one of Ms. Malcolm’s chapters. She notes that the highest crime rates are in urban areas, not rural places that own the most guns. Relying on the groundbreaking work of the economist John Lott, Ms. Malcolm shows how states with concealed-weapons laws have reduced crime. And she notes that while American firearm legislation has continued to loosen on a state level, the country’s rates of violent crime have been falling since 1991, hitting a 30-year low in 1999.

In addition to presenting the big picture with plenty of detail, Ms. Malcolm describes some of the more difficult aspects of this whole debate — changing definitions of crime, unreported crimes, wavering enthusiasm for strict law enforcement. Altogether she makes a forceful case, clearly and fairly. Even the most hardened anti-gunners — my friends included — will want to read “Guns and Violence,” if only to see what ammunition their opponents now possess.

Ms. Strassel is a Journal editorial writer.