Hi, I have sent an email to Powerline in response to Malcolm’s retort, I assume/hope they print it.
That said, here it is in full:
‘Let me respond point by point:
‘The information I have written, while obviously exciting the scotsman to the point of hysteria, happens to be accurate.’
Again, not so. And the fact that an educated layman can counter your ‘facts’ is again troubling.
‘To take just a couple of points: When the British police response to a wounded assailant is to arrest the person attacked–the homeowner attacked at night in his own home or a shopkeeper whose shop was invaded by armed burglars-and threaten them with charges of assault, attempted murder, or murder they are beginning with the assumption that the victim is guilty. The facts should be ascertained before the arrest. In America Mr. Coley would not have been arrested.’
Ms Malcolm misses an obvious point, that from the police’s point of view. And that is initially they may not even be sure for some time who the householder is. Therefore everuone ‘gets nicked’. As to the procedure of the British police, it may be odd, but it is what it is. The police must ascertain whether a householder used reasonable and legitimate force. Recently, a householder arrested a burglar after a chase of half a mile from his home, and still that distance away from his property, had his family hold the man down whilst he drive over him in his car.
Now, do I have any sympathy for the lowlife burglar?. No, but it illustrates that the police must discern reasonable force.
The ‘strange’ British way has worked by and large for many years, not despite the hype by the media and commentators like Malcolm over a tiny minority of cases. Again, I will point out that odd way or not, the people ‘arrested’ are all released very quickly, usually within hours. The arrests are simply in almost all cases, a formality, a procedure.
‘As Glanville Williams, author of a famous textbook on British criminal law wrote: “For some reason that is not clear, the courts occasionally seem to regard the killing of a robber (or a person who is feared to be a robber) as of greater moment than the safety of the robber’s’ victim in respect of his person and property.” He added that the requirement that an individual’s efforts to defend himself be “reasonable” was “now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law.”’
If Ms Malcolm would seek to educate herself on recent British law, she would see that both the Labour government in its third term of 2005-2010 and the new Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition have publicly sought to and in fact have STRENGTHENED the law of self defence in Britain.
And Granville Williams, Ms Malcolm’s British ‘go-to guy’?. Mr Williams died in 1997. And his last book was written in 1978!. Any opinion Mr Williams may have is therefore over 30 years out of date at the very least. Ms Malcolm’s academic sleight of hand is frankly shameful. Either sloppy academic work or deliberate distortion of the facts.
‘As for having to retreat if attacked on the street, the BBC has explained that if attacked you may defend yourself with a briefcase, a handbag or keys but once you have broken free you must retreat. Should you give your assailant an additional blow you are guilty of assault.’
The BBC?. Apologies, I thought that the actual guidelines, rules of British law are set by Parliament and by the Home Office. Not a vague webpage from a media monolith whom this week was caught faking documentary footage for the umpteenth time.
As Ms Malcolm may be aware, I was myself the victim of a burglary with violence in 2008. A burglary in which I had to chase, apprehend and subdue the (armed) miscreant. And got a stabbing in the hand with a screwdriver for my troubles. I had to punch the gentleman in question three times to subdue him, and I made full declaration of that fact, both to police and in my statement to court. And both the police and the judge found my use of violence perfectly legitimate.
So I know that the assertion made above is wrong. The level of violence allowed by the self defender will vary on the circumstance. Common sense. For Ms Malcolm to suggest that there is in Britain a ‘fixed idee’ of self defence and legitimate violence is simply wrong.
‘On the illegality of replica guns, the Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2006 bans the manufacture of realistic imitations. It defines unrealistic imitations as being at least 50 percent colored bright green, blue, red, pink, yellow, purple or transparent.’
Correct.
BUT that is markedly different from your original statement that toy guns and replicas are banned in the UK.
Toy guns are not banned, and the idea they are is, well, bizarre. To be polite.
As for replicas, the law changes have modified the style of replicas that can be bought and sold. But that does not mean that it is illegal to own any.
‘The date for no longer being able to obtain a gun for self-defense was indeed 1964. Home Office classified instructions to the police in that year state: “It should hardly ever be necessary to anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person…this principle should hold good even in the case of banks and firms who desire to protect valuables or large quantities of money; only in very exceptional cases should a firearm be held for protection purposes.”’
Nope.
The 1964 handbook may say so, but the fact remains that the decision made by the British govt to restrict the rationale of self defence as one for owning a firearm was 1946. The 17th of October 1946, to be exact, by Home Secretary James Ede. The public announcement of the fact was during a debate on firearms certificates.
To suggest 1964 simply because Ms Malcolm has come across it in her research is, again, sloppy academic work.
The correct 1946 decision by the Home Secretary is easily available on the internet, most notably via the archives of Hansard, the famous transcribers of all British Parliamentary business.
Here is the Hansard link for the 1946 debate:
(The 1946 decision by James Ede has also been noted in such books on British gun law such as Colin Greenwood’s seminal ‘Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales 18 (1971)) ‘
Compelling and very persuasive. Kudos, scotsman.
You are “trying to have your cake and eat it too”.
You have criticized Ms. Malcolm’s reference to a statement attributed to the BBC for it not being authoritative, and have then attempted to refute it by relating a personal anecdote which is also hardly authoritative.
Your dismissal of Ms. Malcolm’s assertions about banning of toy and replica guns as “bizarre” is, by your own admissions, highly questionable. It would appear that your dispute is only over a matter of the degree to which they are banned, rather than over the black-and-white issue of whether or not they are banned.
You rail at Ms. Malcolm for using as a reference an author who died in 1997 and last published in 1978, only to later make a point via a reference to a book published in 1971. While your use of that source may be perfectly legitimate, you have undercut your own arguments by seemingly basing the illegitimacy of Ms. Malcolm’s source(s) primarily on the source’s publication date. That may indeed be relevant information to disclose as one means of illuminating your argument, but it’s hardly dispositive.
Furthermore, the hyperbole that you employ in dismissing Ms. Malcolm’s use of Mr. Williams’ writings (as well as elsewhere in your piece), does little to convince this reader of anything beyond reinforcing the impression that you do indeed seem to be a bit “excitable”.
Your own argument seems to be that only Parliament and the Home Office are legitimate sources of information about “the law”, but then go on to point to references and anecdotes that are secondhand at best in an attempt to bolster your argument. Which is it, then?
So, your “point by point response” appears rather less substantial than you might have at first imagined.
Some may find your argument about the date of self defense being disallowed as a reason for firearms certificates to be less certain.
Here are the paragraphs of the source referenced:
FIREARM CERTIFICATES (REVOLVERS) HC Deb 17 October 1946 vol 427 c257W 257W§ 112. Sir R. Young
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the police authorities can now issue permission for certificates to be given on application to persons who wish to own revolvers for their personal needs; and whether it is intended to return the pistols to those dispossessed of them by the refusal to renew certificates two or three years ago or whether the value of surrendered pistols is to be made good.
§ Mr. Ede
Anyone who considers that he has a good reason for possessing a firearm can at any time apply to the appropriate chief officer of police for a firearm certificate and, if a certificate is refused, he can appeal to the Quarter Sessions. The application will fall to be dealt with in the light of the circumstances of the case but, for my part, I could not regard the plea that a revolver is wanted for the protection of an applicant's person or property as necessarily justifying the issue of a firearm certificate. There can be no question of compensation being paid from police funds in any case in which a person is unable to dispose of a firearm for which he is unable to obtain a firearm certificate in accordance with the law.
So, the question becomes one of authority. It appears to me that Mr. Ede is simply stating a personal opinion, without the force of law. I could easily be wrong. In 1946, was the personal opinion of the Home Secretary considered to have the force of law?