ricketyclick

Don B. Cates, writing at Cal Guns:

[The following is from an article that Carlyle Moody and I are writing on the theory that more guns in a society will cause more crime. This part of the article was written by Prof. Moody an economist at William & Mary College.]

If more guns cause murder, and more guns cause more murder, it would seem societies with no guns at all should be the safest possible states. There are few gun free societies in the world today. However, if we look back in history to the time before the invention of firearms, we can judge for ourselves whether those societies were tranquil and safe. Remarkably good homicide data is available for England, beginning in the 1200’s. Those data indicate a pre-gun homicide rate in England of roughly 20 per 100,000 [roughly four times greater than the U.S. today]

Firearms were introduced into England in the 1400’s and were in wide use by the 1500’s, coincident with a decline in the homicide rate to 15 per 100K. However these early guns were predominately of the matchlock design. This design featured a slow burning fuse held in a clamp at the end of a serpentine lever. When the trigger was pulled the clamp dropped down so that the end of the lit fuse touched the powder in the flash pan, firing the weapon. The design was simple and the weapons relatively inexpensive. The major problem with the design from the point of view of personal defense was that, because of the need for a lit fuse, the weapon could not be kept and carried loaded and primed for quick use against a sudden attack.

The first firearm that could be carried loaded and primed was the flintlock, introduced into England around 1630. In this design the fuse is replaced by a piece of flint. When the trigger is pulled the flint strikes a piece of steel producing a shower of sparks that ignite the powder in the flash pan. This technology persisted through the early 1800’s. While matchlocks were almost exclusively long guns, flintlock technology was readily adapted to produce handguns, which were particularly useful for self defense. The flintlock pistol was relatively inexpensive, could be comfortably carried, was ready for action in an instant, and did not require a great deal of physical strength or expertise to operate. The flintlock could be fired in an instant, making it the ideal self- defense weapon. Armed with a flintlock, the physically weak found themselves on an equal footing with the physically strong in a confrontation.

The introduction of the flintlock coincided with the largest decline in homicide in English history. The homicide rate plunged to 6 per 100K in the 1600’s. The English homicide rate continued to decline slowly and steadily until well into the 20th century. For example, in 1900 the homicide rate was 0.96 per 100K.

The last hundred years of English history tells the reverse story. The first modern gun law in England was the Pistols Act of 1903 which required Englishmen to purchase a permit in order to acquire a firearm. Since 1920, the English government’s policy has been ever more restrictive. The Firearms Control Act of 1920 imposed a true permit requirement to possess rifles as well as all types of pistols and empowered local authorities to determine if the applicant would be allowed to purchase arms. This permit requirement was administered progressively more stringently and was amended to increase restrictions over time in an attempt to reduce the civilian gun stock. The Prevention of Crime Act of 1953 and the Criminal Law Act of 1967 redefined the right to self defense more restrictively making any act of self defense potentially criminal. The Firearms Acts of 1968 and 1998 brought shotguns under strict regulation; the Firearm Act of 1997 effectively banned the private ownership of handguns and provided for the confiscation of all legally owned handguns.
According to the more guns more crime hypothesis, all this restriction of civilian guns should have resulted in England enjoying lower and lower rates of violent crime. Unfortunately, the facts reveal a pattern that is almost opposite. [as of 2000 England had twice the violent crime rate of the U.S.] and I are writing on the theory that more guns in a society will cause more crime. This part of the article was written by Prof. Moody an economist at William & Mary College.]

If more guns cause murder, and more guns cause more murder, it would seem societies with no guns at all should be the safest possible states. There are few gun free societies in the world today. However, if we look back in history to the time before the invention of firearms, we can judge for ourselves whether those societies were tranquil and safe. Remarkably good homicide data is available for England, beginning in the 1200’s. Those data indicate a pre-gun homicide rate in England of roughly 20 per 100,000 [roughly four times greater than the U.S. today]

Firearms were introduced into England in the 1400’s and were in wide use by the 1500’s, coincident with a decline in the homicide rate to 15 per 100K. However these early guns were predominately of the matchlock design. This design featured a slow burning fuse held in a clamp at the end of a serpentine lever. When the trigger was pulled the clamp dropped down so that the end of the lit fuse touched the powder in the flash pan, firing the weapon. The design was simple and the weapons relatively inexpensive. The major problem with the design from the point of view of personal defense was that, because of the need for a lit fuse, the weapon could not be kept and carried loaded and primed for quick use against a sudden attack.

The first firearm that could be carried loaded and primed was the flintlock, introduced into England around 1630. In this design the fuse is replaced by a piece of flint. When the trigger is pulled the flint strikes a piece of steel producing a shower of sparks that ignite the powder in the flash pan. This technology persisted through the early 1800’s. While matchlocks were almost exclusively long guns, flintlock technology was readily adapted to produce handguns, which were particularly useful for self defense. The flintlock pistol was relatively inexpensive, could be comfortably carried, was ready for action in an instant, and did not require a great deal of physical strength or expertise to operate. The flintlock could be fired in an instant, making it the ideal self- defense weapon. Armed with a flintlock, the physically weak found themselves on an equal footing with the physically strong in a confrontation.

The introduction of the flintlock coincided with the largest decline in homicide in English history. The homicide rate plunged to 6 per 100K in the 1600’s. The English homicide rate continued to decline slowly and steadily until well into the 20th century. For example, in 1900 the homicide rate was 0.96 per 100K.

The last hundred years of English history tells the reverse story. The first modern gun law in England was the Pistols Act of 1903 which required Englishmen to purchase a permit in order to acquire a firearm. Since 1920, the English government’s policy has been ever more restrictive. The Firearms Control Act of 1920 imposed a true permit requirement to possess rifles as well as all types of pistols and empowered local authorities to determine if the applicant would be allowed to purchase arms. This permit requirement was administered progressively more stringently and was amended to increase restrictions over time in an attempt to reduce the civilian gun stock. The Prevention of Crime Act of 1953 and the Criminal Law Act of 1967 redefined the right to self defense more restrictively making any act of self defense potentially criminal. The Firearms Acts of 1968 and 1998 brought shotguns under strict regulation; the Firearm Act of 1997 effectively banned the private ownership of handguns and provided for the confiscation of all legally owned handguns.
According to the more guns more crime hypothesis, all this restriction of civilian guns should have resulted in England enjoying lower and lower rates of violent crime. Unfortunately, the facts reveal a pattern that is almost opposite. [as of 2000 England had twice the violent crime rate of the U.S.]

[Emphasis in the original.]

Here it is again: the key tactic in any argument with a gun control advocate is to demand the citing of any instance where relaxing gun control laws has increased crime. And, I suspect, you can also do well by demanding the citing of any instance where imposing gun control on the general population has decreased crime. (The “on the general population” proviso is aimed at excepting closed, tightly controlled areas such as prisons. Presumably, most gun control advocates would not be willing to voluntarily live in a prison.)

===

Ack, I’ve lost the via.