REVIEWSrnThe AmericanrnExceptionrnby Larry PrattrnThe Samurai, the Mountie, and thernCowboy: Should America Adopt thernGun Controls of Other Democracies?rnby David B. KopelrnBuffalo: Prometheus Books;rn420 pp., $28.95rnAfavorite exhortation of those seekingrnto further restrict or remove the privaternpossession of firearms in the UnitedrnStates is to “look at other countries,”rnwhere lower murder rates are supposedrnto be a result of gun control laws. Thernunderlying presumption beneath thesernlaws is that guns cause crime. Gettingrnrid of guns, or at least severely limitingrnthem, reduces, so we are told, the level ofrnviolence in a given society.rnKopel, a prosecuting attorney in NewrnYork City before moving to Coloradornwhere he served in that state’s attorneyrngeneral’s office, now practices law inrnDenver and is an associate policy analystrnfor the Cato Institute. His careful analysisrnof the data from other countries asrncompared with the United States revealsrnmajor flaws in the assumption that foreignrngun control laws can be successfullyrngrafted upon this country. As Kopelrnrepeatedly shows, foreign gun laws arernapplied in an environment of greatly restrictedrncivil liberties and other socialrncontrols.rnArms control in Japan began as farrnback as the 16th century as a way of facilitatingrnthe collection of taxes, andrnfrom that time on, arms were consideredrnthe emblem of a nobleman. Commonrnpeople were to remain unarmedrnand to pay taxes. Today, the Japaneserntolerate a level of authoritarian intrusionrninto their lives that would be unacceptablernto Americans. (However, the federalrngovernment’s assault on the Weaverrnfamily in northern Idaho—killing arnmother holding her baby in her armsrnand a 13-year-old boy—and its attack onrnthe Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas,rnmay be more widely accepted by Americansrntoday than they would have beenrnby their forefathers.)rnKopel finds a significant differencernbetween the American and the Japanesernunderstanding of the “rule of law” andrnquotes a Japanese writer to make the distinction:rnin America, “rule of law” expressesrnthe subordination of governmentrnto the law; in Japan, “rule of law” refers tornthe people’s obligation to obey therngovernment and is thus “an ideology tornlegitimize domination.” Even languagernsupports the Japanese anti-individualistrnview: the Japanese word for “different”rnalso means “wrong.” Kopel makes arntelling point when comparing the formerrnSoviet Union with Japan: “Otherrnnations, such as the former SovietrnUnion, have had severe gun control, lessrn[sic] criminal justice safeguards, andrnmore unconstrained police forces thanrnJapan. But the Soviets’ crime rate wasrnhigh while Japan’s is miniscule becausernJapan has the socially accepted and internalizedrnrestraints on individual behaviorrnthat the Soviets lacked.” ThernJapanese also accept a degree of policerncontrol over their lives that Americansrnwould reject. In Japan, for example, thernpolice are permitted to come into arnhouse and look around—all without arnwarrant. Detaining a suspect without arnlawyer until he confesses is standard procedure.rnThat is all part of their understandingrnof the “rule of law.”rnThe absence of guns among thernJapanese civilian population has not preventedrnsuicide; indeed, the Japanese suicidernrate is twice that in America. Evenrnmore interesting is the fact that if murderrnand suicide rates are combined, thernUnited States is slightly less violent thanrnJapan: 20.1 per 100,000 as compared torn21.9. While the overall combined ratesrnare accurate, the relatively high numberrnof Japanese suicides is probably inflated.rnMany Japanese suicides involve the murderrnof other family members by the onerncommitting suicide. But dead is dead.rnKopel quotes an American journalistrnwho said after a visit to England, “Onernaxiom I heard a lot when I was there:rn’We’re subjects. You’re citizens.'” ThernBritish, although less authoritarian thanrnthe Japanese, view the American traditionrnof “government as servant and subjectrnto the people” as anarchistic. Whilernhistorically this distinction seems accuraternenough, this American tradition ofrnself-reliance is under fire.rnThe New Jersey Supreme Court rejectedrna constitutional challenge to arngun control law on the grounds that thernAmerican right to bear arms derives fromrnthe British and that in modern times thernBritish right has vanished: “For all practicalrnpurposes the average citizen cannotrnlawfully obtain firearms in Great Britainrnat the present time.” The Court revealedrnits ignorance insofar as the averagernBriton can obtain firearms (limitedrnin number and variety), while the rightrnto keep and bear arms in the UnitedrnStates is hardly based exclusively, or evenrnprimarily, on the British precedent.rnKopel’s study of the history of firearmsrnpossession in Britain makes it clear that,rnat least in the past, the British understoodrnthat widespread ownership ofrnfirearms meant freedom, that he whorncontrols the militia controls the state.rnBut when the state (king, legislature, orrnpresident) controls the militia, freedomrndies.rnIn Britain, gun control was imposed torncontain not common criminals butrnrather political opponents; murder ratesrnhave actually increased slightly since thernimposition of gun controls in England.rnAnd firearms restrictions have been notoriouslyrnineffective in controllingrnviolence in Northern Ireland, which is,rnafter all, part of Great Britain. It is worthrnnoting that Kopel finds that willing acceptancernby British gun owners of moderaterncontrols has not prevented the subsequentrnimposition of increasinglyrnrestrictive measures.rnGun control advocates must wish thatrnSwitzeriand and Israel did not exist, sincernthe environmentalist notion that an objectrncauses human action—that gunsrncause crime—fails miserably to explainrnthese two countries: both countries haverncivilian populations armed to the teeth,rnand both have among the very lowestrnmurder rates in the world.rnOnce a Swiss citizen has a firearmsrnpurchase certificate, he may purchasernany number of unregistered firearms. Ifrnhe is a male, he must serve in the military.rnWhen not on active duty (48 to 50rnweeks of the year), he is required to keeprn36/CHRONICLESrnrnrn