What do you brits think of this book and author?

[lazs2]

Guns and Violence the English Experiance by Joyce Lee Malcolm

I haven't finished it yet but so far.... seems pretty well researched and thought out minus the rhetoric and hysteria the subject usually brings out.

lazs

[Curval]

Haven't read it...can you give me an idea of what you have read so far?

[beet1e]

Lazs, if you think it's a good book, I'll buy it and read it. It's available from Amazon UK. If you click that link, there is a review.

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 a researched historical study of England, whose strict gun laws and low rates of violent crime are often cited as proof that gun control works. To place the private ownership of guns in context, Malcolm offers a wide-ranging examination of English society from the Middle Ages to the late 20th century, analysing changing attitudes toward crime and punishment, the impact of war, economic shifts, and contrasting legal codes on violence. She looks at the level of armed crime in England before its modern restrictive gun legislation, the limitations that gun laws have imposed, and whether those measures have succeeded in reducing the rate of armed crime. Malcolm also offers a revealing comparison of the experience in England with that in the modern United States. Americans own some 200 million guns and have seen eight consecutive years of declining violence, while the English - prohibited from carrying weapons and limited in their right to self-defence - have suffered a dramatic increase in rates of violent crime. This text takes a crucial step in illuminating the actual relationship between guns and violence in modern society.

The reviewer awarded the book the maximum 5 stars. But don't be misled by comparisons between declining violence in the US, and rising violence in the UK. We've still yet to have a year in which more than 100 people are killed by guns. The US still has never had fewer than 5000 gun deaths in the past 25 years. I do know of a frail old lady, now in her nineties, who was burgled while she was at home not far from where I used to live and near where 99Gatso lives (Roman Road). Arming the elderly and frail and other people like this lady would very likely lead to more incidents like this. The only way to disprove my assertion that gun homicides would not rise to 1500-3000 per annum if there were to be a guns free for all in Britain is to try it out. But when the plan fails, we'd never be able to get the genie back into the bottle. Moot point because it's not going to happen. We're doing the reverse. Two amnesties with about 60,000 guns pulled in.

Lazs, didn't you say that your house was broken into while you were at work? Despite it being heavily armed? I've never had a car broken into and I've never had my house broken into, probably because I take precautions. Where I live is not crime free. A chap across from me had two cars stolen - the burglar got in through a rear door.

Britain's rising crime is due to a crap government which is not doing enough to deter criminals, but instead squanders our taxes on fatuous projects like the Millennium Dome, and other white elephants. They also throw money at our National Health Service, but have no clue about how the money will be spent. There are too few jails, and new ones are not being built. We need more jails (ones like Marion, Illinois), tougher sentencing, and a "three strikes" system as exists in the US. For my part, I've yet to get the automatic lighting installed on the outside of my house, but my friend Mr. Chubb looks out for me.

[NUKE]

The author has gained access to a joint US Dept of Justice & British Home Office 1995 study which compares rates of crime in both countries. This study concludes that you are three times more likely to be mugged and four times more likely to suffer aggrevated burglary or "Home Invasion" in the UK , than in the United States. Why the difference ? Joyce Lee Malcolm presents evidence from a survey of convicted burglars who openly state that they will not risk burglaring a house when they believed the owner to have access to a gun. Professor Malcolm then gives us a comprehensive account of other authoritive studies.

amazon

Has banning guns in the UK reduced the amount of gun deaths per year? I did'nt think gun deaths were ever that big a problem in the UK before the bans.

Something tells me that banning the guns may have led to an increase in crime.

[Toad]

Here's a very politically incorrect thought for you Beet:

Some people just need killing.

So, of those firearms deaths in the US, some are folks that needed killing.

I'd subtract those from the total.

Like I said, it's politically incorrect for a lot of folks. They probably recoil in horror at the thought.

But like a wolf among the new lambs, there's folks that just need a bullet.

Boston Herald, Boston, MA (5/11/99)  
  State: FL
American Rifleman Issue: August, 1999
A Heathrow, Florida, woman had endured unwanted advances and spying from a greenskeeper at her local golf course for more than six months.

In a final invasion of his victim's privacy, the stalker, armed with a handgun and a rope, found his way into the woman's home. After ordering her husband out of the way, the man confronted the woman, pushing her into a back bedroom and letting loose a volley of five shots. The wounded victim was not about to go easily, however, and fired back with one shot with a .38-cal. revolver she had bought for protection.

The shot proved fatal to the 50-year-old man whose body was found next to a backpack full of pornography.

The stalker was also under indictment for five counts of lewd and lascivious assault on a child.

[Curval]

lol...I never figured you for the vigilante type Toad.

My scooter was stolen on Friday night...probably some kids did some joyriding and then dumped it...or it was stripped for parts.  Probably the latter as the back brakes were starting to cease.

If I was in Dixon, California would such a crime have warrented a bullet?

I'm a wee bit upset, but ending a life over a scooter?

The insured value was about $1,200...which I will collect.

[Toad]

Nope, not really a vigilante and a material posession is clearly not worth a life.

But my children? Yep.

If you were holding a pistol and a cell phone and someone was stabbing your child, which one would you use first?

American Rifleman : February 1996  
  State: GA
American Rifleman Issue: February, 1996

"THEY DIDN'T PLAN ON LEAVING WITNESSES" After saying goodbye to his wife, Mary, Brian Rigsby left their home outside Atlanta, Georgia, to pick up his friend Tom Styer for an impromptu camping trip on the afternoon of Saturday, November 24, 1990. Getting a late start and making a few wrong turns in the Oconee National Forest, the two friends didn't arrive at their campsite until well after dark. They'd chosen a spot convenient to the public rifle range in Oconee, and eagerly looked forward to some target practice the next day. By the light of a lantern, the friends pitched a tent and then built a campfire.

They were settling in for the night when they heard the distinctive growl of a diesel engine approaching. Shortly thereafter, a truck pulled up, right into the middle of the camp. Rigsby noticed that it was a work truck, with the name of a business painted on the side. Two men got out and introduced themselves, explaining that they were driving around to meet people and help out. Exceedingly polite, the visitors insisted on helping Rigsby and Styer cut more firewood. During their hour-long stay, the courteous duo depicted themselves as long-time residents of the area, boasting about their extensive knowledge of the surrounding woods.

Rigsby remembers feeling uncomfortable with the two men, and relieved when they finally left. He even considered moving the camp to another location. But before any firm decision could be reached, Rigsby and Styer heard the truck's diesel engine once again driving down the road toward their camp. It was the only road in. The truck stopped before reaching the camp, and its engine abruptly cut off.

In the quiet that followed, Rigsby and Styer heard the faint crackle of leaves rustling as their former visitors stole toward the campsite. When the two friends realized they were being stalked, each grabbed his gun and made sure it was loaded. Rigsby took cover behind his truck, armed with a Ruger Mini-14 with a 30-round magazine, while Styer knelt in the tent's shadow with his .45 pistol at the ready. Rigsby was shocked and filled with disbelief. "I tried to listen for the men," he recalls, "but couldn't hear much over the sound of my breathing and the pounding of my heart."

It was Styer that saw them first. One of the men slid suddenly into the light cast by the campfire, pointing his double-barrelled shotgun in Rigsby's direction. Afraid he would actually shoot, Rigsby kept his head down, and heard Styer ask the man why he came back with a gun. In reply, the man swung the shotgun toward Styer and answered, "I'm going to kill you." Styer instructed the intruder to drop his gun. Instead, the intruder fired, hitting Styer in the legs.

Rigsby remembers seeing the front sight of his Mini-14 centered on the assailant's chest. He fired twice. Quickly swinging the rifle toward the second attacker's position, Rigsby fired six or seven additional rounds, determing his point of aim by the flash from the other man's muzzle against the blackness of the surrounding forest. Partially blinded by the flash from his own muzzle, Rigsby dropped back down behind his truck. He looked underneath the frame, across the campsite. Seeing no one, he yelled for help. There was no answer. He called out to Styer, but heard no response.

Rigsby knew that the first attacker was down and no longer a threat. But the other gunman was out there, somewhere. Rigsby strained his ears, trying to hear any movement in the nearby trees. He heard nothing. He looked around the camp and beyond it into the woods, but still saw no one. Waiting a few minutes, he called again to Styer, but his friend still did not answer.

Rigsby then began to move slowly and cautiously backward, away from the camp. Seeing a light through the trees, he started toward it. Amazingly, he found a camp filled with hunters about 300 yds. away. One of the hunters hurried away to call the police, who responded and immediately placed Rigsby under arrest.

They returned to the scene of the attack and found Styer, still alive. The shotgun-wielding attacker had been hit twice and died at the scene. His accomplice was also hit twice, but survived. Both carried 12-ga. scatterguns loaded with 3" magnum buckshot, and both had fired their weapons at Rigsby and Styer. The two friends gave statements to the police, whereupon Rigsby was released from custody and Styer was taken to the local hospital.

In his statement, the surviving gunman admitted he and his accomplice had returned to rob the campers, a crime they had planned while smoking crack cocaine following their initial visit to the campsite. The surviving gunman was subsequently charged with aggravated assault, convicted and released on probation.

Later, an officer told Brian Rigsby and Tom Styer that police were convinced the pair of attackers would have murdered both campers; when introducing themselves, the deceptively courteous men had used their real names and drove a truck owned by their employer. Apparently, they didn't plan to leave any witnesses to their crime.

Ed. Note: Although Brian Rigsby's Mini-14 was not on the list of so-called "assault weapons" prohibited by the 1994 gun ban, with a few cosmetic changes, it would meet the criteria established therein by the 103rd Congress. All magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds were banned. * Armed Citizen, p. 7  

Some folks just need killing.

[SOB]

Say, it seems those two needed killin'.  Too bad the job was only half finished.

[Curval]

I don't disagree that many crimminals deserve to die.  ESPECIALLY if someone threatens my children.

But, I hear an awful lot on these boards about American's constitutional right to carry firearms.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a wee little thing in there (The Constitution) about the right to a fair trial?

[GrimCO]

Hey there Curval,

I could be wrong, but I think what Toad was trying to say is that a large majority of "gun related" homocides here in the U.S. are gang or drug related shootings of fellow criminals.

Having been a police officer for 7 years in a crime infested city, I saw very few "innocent citizens" murdered with guns. The majority of our shootings (and there were a lot of them) were drug dealers and gang members shooting eachother in "turf wars" over territory.

Being a kindhearted individual, I never experienced joy or elation at a fellow human being who was shot to death. However, after dealing with these types of people for so long, I no longer considered them human. It may sound cold, but their disregard for life, and their lack of respect for themselves, let alone for fellow human beings created a strange mindset within me that I had not experienced before. When I saw one of them dead on the street, I basically felt nothing. No happiness, and no sorrow. It was just one less problem I had to deal with.

Perhaps you had to experience it to understand it, but these types of people served absolutely no benefit to society, which in and of itself would have been fine. However, the fact is that they were a complete detriment to society. Perhaps their proceeds from dealing drugs added to the local economy from their purchases of fancy cars, expensive clothes and jewelry. But any of these "benefits" were negated immediately by the people who were robbing and stealing to support their drug habits. It's a vicious cycle.

I only wish they had better aim. Perhaps that would save the occasional child who was killed in their room while playing with their blocks by a stray bullet fired by one of these scumbags at someone who was standing on "their corner".

[Curval]

Fair point Grim...but the examples cited here are more related to "home invasion" or "camp invasion" type crimes.  Protection being the main impetus for owning firearms.  Lazs' book speaks of crime and it's relation to owning guns.

Soon, very soon (should this thread become a biggie...again) we will hear about the enjoyment guns bring...and the reason for owning them will switch to entertainment purposes.

Who wants to bet?

[GrimCO]

Well, I can sympathize with gun ownership for recreational purposes. I own a shotgun and a rifle for hunting. However, I also own a pistol which is used solely for protection. The whole gun ownership argument has valid points on each side. Each side also bends statistics to support it's arguments. It's a tough one to call.

[lazs2]

I agree that many people need killing in the U.S.   They ruin the lives of many.

In the book the author seems to be saying that there were more homicides in england before guns than after and that if anything... guns in england don't increase the homicide rate...  guns do seem to decrease the crime rate which is about what we have found here.

As beetle pointed out... my house was broke into while I was gone... it was obvious that they made a hasty retreat too..  in an unarmed society criminals break in while the home is occupied and I doubt that they would have been so eager to run.

The book does seem to be very scholorly and sensible with no preconcieved notions... she examins every statistic no matter how obvious it seems.

The American Rifleman has about  a dozen or so examples every month of people fending off or killing rabid criminals.   This is only a small sample tho of the 3/4 to 1 1/2 million such incidents every year in the U.S.  

The author points out that english crime is up while U.S. crime continues to fall.   British homicide rate stays the same no matter what era or what kind of gun control or.... none at all... haven't gotten to modern times yet but that is the gist.
lazs

[lazs2]

If a person isn't trustworthy enough to be allowed to have a gun then he shouldn't be allowed to be on the streets.

In the book.... one contention was that keeping people from killing each other was never the point to british gun control... the point was allways a fearful monarch who wanted to disarm potential threats to his rule.   that is for up to the 18th century... that is as far as I have gotten.
lazs

[Toad]

The US still has never had fewer than 5000 gun deaths in the past 25 years

Curval, the point is that of those "gun deaths" every year, there are some that brought it upon themselves and "needed killing".

The two examples I posted are just that.. examples. Not necessarily commenting on "recreation" or "protection at all; simply pointing out that in "all those gun deaths" there are some (a few?  a bunch? many?) that deserved to be shot.

There are lots of other examples. NRA has been printing "Armed Citizen" since 1958 I believe.

Saw one not too long ago that detailed the beating/rape of an old woman (seems like 80+ years old] by some dipshirt that couldn't find a hooker (I guess). She eventually got to a gun and shot him stone cold dead.

IMO, that one needed killing anyway. I take Grim's view.

I no longer considered them human. It may sound cold, but their disregard for life, and their lack of respect for themselves, let alone for fellow human beings created a strange mindset within me that I had not experienced before.

Yep. Well said.