"Stand your ground" laws linked to jump in U.S. firearm homicides
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The enactment of "stand your ground" laws was associated with an "abrupt and sustained" national increase in firearm homicide rates in America, according to a new study published Monday in the peer-reviewed journal JAMA Network Open .
Why it matters: "Stand your ground" laws, which allow for the use of deadly force in self-defense with no obligation to retreat, have come under fire in recent years after high-profile deaths like Trayvon Martin's. Critics say the laws enable unnecessary violence, while proponents claim they offer self-protection.
Details: The study, which assessed "stand your ground" laws enacted in 41 states between 2000 and 2016, found they were associated with an 8 to 11% increase in monthly firearm homicide rates, or an additional 58 to 72 homicides each month.
- That monthly increase alone is greater than total rates of homicides in most Northern and Western European countries, the study said.
- State-level rises in homicide and firearm homicide rates topped 10% for several Southern states, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Louisiana.
What they're saying: "[N]o states had significant reductions in violent deaths, as advocates often argue when justifying these laws," researchers wrote.
- "The accumulation of evidence established in this and other studies point to harmful outcomes associated with SYG laws. Despite this, SYG laws have now been enacted in most states, and the uptake of new SYG bills continues to be popular, unnecessarily risking lives."
Tags
Who is online
412 visitors
Seeded without comment ...
radicals enact radical laws. opponents should exploit those laws until sensible bipartisan laws are crafted.
I knew it was higher, but that is quite a few homicides we do not need.
Per month? Holy crap!
"Stand your ground" laws simply give a person who wants to kill someone else, a means to do so. They just have to find the opportunity for themselves.
I'm in a rwnj state for the winter and I'm surrounded by rwnj's. you bet your ass I'm packing.
Are you going out specifically to find someone to shoot?
Are you creating a confrontation just so you can "stand your ground" and legally kill someone?
If your answer is no, I fully support your ability to carry a gun if you feel it necessary. The issue I have is the "stand your ground" laws allowing people to basically commit murder during a made up confrontation, or just a refusal to walk away.
I have to wonder if the "study" differentiated the two. I would love to know how many "made up confrontations " there have been along with the penalty for anyone doing that in order to kill someone. I would think they can still be charged for making up a confrontation and murdering someone..
When the only other witness is dead and unable to testify? How many "stand your ground" shootings could have been avoided if one of them just had the balls to turn and walk away?
I can't find any stats on that--can YOU?
And what makes you think because ONE party walks away the other party ceases activity?
You may as well have asked how many people who shot another in self-defense would have been killed had they not acted.
If I could, would I have asked??? Once again your failure to read my comment makes your reply look silly.
Are you claiming that no one has ever walked away from a violent confrontation and lived???
Just look at the numbers, how many times do people confront others and how many times has the "stand your ground" been used. Most confrontations end with one or the other walking away, NOT with one shooting the other.
No, I'm asking how many people, if they had the balls to walk away, would not have to shoot someone else.
Is THAT what you "think" you read??LOL!
I LOVE stand-your-ground laws. No sense in law-abiding citizens having to retreat forever from idiots when they feel threatened.
Then, once again, you need to comment more clearly, since that is indeed what you IMPLIED.
Sorry, but I don't give a flying fuck what you "think" I implied.
Just read without adding your own thoughts to what you are actually reading.
Not all that simple.
More people with more guns does not and will not ever make us any safer. In fact, whenever a gun is brought into any home the chances someone living there will die from gunshot goes up exponentially. That is just a fact!
Even worse, how many children have died from gunshot wounds by guns they found in the house?
Or, how many suicides happened because the gun was so easily available to lay hands on...
How many suicides happened because prescription drugs were easily available to lay hands on...
How many suicides happened because razor blades were easily available to lay hands on...
How many suicides happened because bridges were easily accessible...
How many suicides happened because ropes were easily available to lay hands on...
How many prescription drugs were designed purely to kill?
How many razor blades were designed purely to kill?
How many bridges were designed purely to kill?
How many ropes were designed purely to kill?
Guns were designed for 1 purpose, killing. Suicides will happen no matter what, but they should not be so easy by easily providing a tool specifically designed to kill. Everything on your list was created for a purpose, not killing, only by misuse can their purpose be altered.
Anyone leaving a gun unlocked in a house with children should be charged if something were to happen to the child.
… or if something were to happen to ANY child who visits this home. Imagine that you responsibly take all the precautions to prevent a gun tragedy in your own home, but your kid gets killed when he was playing at his friend’s home because his friend’s parents are careless. There is no realistic way to prevent that.
That would mean that somebody was negligent and should be held responsible. Won't happen if it's all wrongly labeled "accidental".
“The bad news is that your child is dead. The good news is that someone will be held responsible. Break out the champagne.”
Absolutely, positively agreed. That person should lose all rights to own a gun as well, since they have shown they cannot properly store it.
You're right they do. So instead of focusing on one method, focus on ALL of them. Not just one because you are afraid of an inanimate object.
Not 100% but I would suggest at least asking before letting your kids go over. Even my daughter and her husband asked me if I had a gun safe before bringing my grandson over. You can't protect your kids from everything that may happen to them.
1st step, let's take away the tool making it the easiest to commit suicide, the tool designed with the expressed purpose of killing.
And you are assuming that it's a firearm. Good luck with that.
What other tool do they have access to that is designed for killing?
How many ropes were designed purely to kill?
Thick hemp ropes for hangings in the old West?
I used to keep my loaded 45 in plain site but out of reach of any children. I had 3 kids that were always visiting me so I informed their parents about my gun and left it up to them if they could visit or not. The funny part was that the two little girls were more interested in the gun than the boy.
Nobody has ever asked me if I was okay with my kids being around their guns, but I suspect at least some of my kids’ friend’s parents owned them. Frankly, if someone said they keep a loaded 45 in plain site, I would never let them be there. If you think you need a loaded 45 in plain site, then I have to wonder what kind of shit is happening in and around your house. I know I’ve never needed anything like that myself.
Maybe because nobody cares. I don't. I don't have firearms because you do or don't like them. I have them because I wanted them for various reasons. Home protection, hunting, some are for show...
Used for hanging, designed for other purposes. Mmmmmm hemp!!
Maybe because nobody cares.
Did it sound like a complaint? So when RDTC’s son or daughter asks you if you have guns before letting their kid play at your house (ref. 3.1.10), would you lie? You just proved my point that anyone’s kid can be killed by the carelessness of the douchebag parents of their kids’ friends.
Actually it did.
Why would I lie? I'll give them a full rundown on exactly what I have.
Wow. Seems you are implying I'm a douchebag because I have firearms in my house? All without knowing what training I have, what my background is, nothing. Just your ignorance you based that assumption. You're more than welcome to come over, take a look and fire a few. You can even bring law enforcement or ATF. I'm sure they will have some fun with them.
At the time, there was a lot of bad shit going on not far from me. That is why I kept it readily accessible but would move it out of reach when the kids visited. Also, my husband was disabled (MS) and could not help me if shit went down. I strived to be responsible when kids were around. Consider yourself lucky that you never had to take the measures that I had to.
Consider the source ..... from the gun grabber goober klatch.
Nobody has ever asked me if I was okay with my kids being around their guns
Lol, that sounds like a complaint to you? With judgement calls like that you sound like the kind of douchebag gun owner that probably shouldn’t own guns. But according to you you are so highly trained that nothing could possibly go wrong in your presence, right? I’m sure this guy thought the same of himself, since he is, er was, an instructor at a gun range that puts uzis into the hands of children.
Here’s the problem when people think they are the good guy with a gun - accidents still happen. This nine year old from Houston found that out the hard way last week.
I never claimed to be a "good gal with a gun". All I was doing was trying to be a responsible gun owner at that time. I looked at what ifs and took what I thought was the correct measures. Wow.
I’m just pointing out that if you felt like you were in a situation where you had to use it, there could be some very unfortunate collateral damage. It happens a lot.
Did it appear that I stuttered?
So, again, without knowing me you are making more retarded assumptions. That is your uneducated opinion and your entitled to it.
I take full responsibility for what happens with weapon that are in my control. If you are dumb enough to assume that you could walk into my home and easily pick one up, your more deluded than I initially gave you credit for.
Not paying for your link. So I did the next best thing...google. How many times was this guy killed? There are reports from 2014, 2015 and 2016. You may want to come up with a better anti-gun story.
Thats getting into the "what ifs department" the way i see it .
I do not consider myself the so-called "good guy with a gun " if i decide im going to have a gun in my possession.
But thats because i have my own set of things i follow for doing so for myself other than what the law allows .
example would be the law here says i can use a firearm in self defense , OR the defense of others from bodily harm or death . IT does not say i HAVE to use it to protect others , but that I can .
If I am carrying , it is there for one purpose and one purpose only , for MY protection if needed , not anyone elses .
IF i decide the use is needed , there are a certain set of situational criteria that MUST and have to be met before the firearm is even unholstered .
I attribute all that to having a little more than a layman's understandings of what the laws say are permissible and because of past training in the subject of use of deadly force . .
Not paying for your link. So I did the next best thing...google. How many times was this guy killed? There are reports from 2014, 2015 and 2016. You may want to come up with a better anti-gun story.
Suuuure you did. Lol, it happened in Aug. 2014, the 2015 and 2016 articles are referring to the 2014 incident - you know, like beginning with the line “It was one year ago that …”. Not that I expect you to both google AND read though, since you have already identified yourself as a half cocked reactionary (that shouldn’t own guns). A lawsuit was filed in 2016, as written in the article you googled.
Based on your premise everybody that lives around me should be dead or we should have a high police presence. Odd that the number of people killed is very low (like single digit low) and there is not a high police presence. Especially when you take into consideration that there are over 200,000 weapons of varying caliber, many of which have the "large capacity" magazines that seem to scare liberals so much.
One wonders if the authors of this study are being intentional disingenuous or are just simply obtuse.
A more intellectually honest approach would be to consider all sources of rising homicide numbers. Stand your ground laws are likely not at the top of that list.
Not even close.
But that would mean doing actual research that could destroy a narrative (in this case gun control).
Any study that includes "was associated with" does nothing to prove an actual cause / effect of the topic. Maybe they should study the increase in crooks thinking they can get away with it causing a rise in people feeling the need to shoot someone breaking into their house.
I have an idea, don't break into my house and I won't feel afraid enough to shoot you. Win Win.
Add to that "if my stuff is more important to you than your life, that would be your problem"
The gun grabber goons fail to mention that most of these homicides turn out to be the bad guys.
The gun grabber goons fail to mention that most of these homicides turn out to be the bad guys.
You mean like these upstanding citizens?
Yep!
And we hear crickets coming from the gun grabber goober corner .....
They're here. Trying to come up with more excuses to disarm law abiding citizens while ignoring the criminal element.
The Journal of the American Medical Association...
What a joke!
One if the largest organizations of gun banners in the country... The promoters of that phantasy study of if you have a gun in the house you ten times more likely to die from gun violence, except they forgot how to do the math which was discovered when the criminologists got ahold of it... The organization that promotes that doctors should report anyone with a gun in the house...
Yeah that whackadoodle organization... And of course, to the liberal gun banners, music to their ears...
Well it's been almost a decade since the rulings in Heller & McDonald established an individual right for self defense almost 20 years since Obama's gun study destroyed any pretense of having accurate data to write any coherent governmental gun policy...
They need an issue so this is one that they are reviving, cause they have lost all credibility on any other and they think we have forgotten...
What do I say?
THANKS Democrats, we needed another reminder of what you actually stand for going into the november elections...
It certainly isn't about protecting the citizen...
I admit , i have not read the article yet , but i would like to see the breakdown by percentage as to different categories of those homicides .
every one knows for instance of the annual firearms deaths , suicides always has the highest percentage , that is more of a mental health issue than it is a firearms issue to most people .
Another category i would like to see is how many of those homicides are a result of criminal or illegal activity . how many are perps and how many are the actual victims of said crimes .
The next category would be the "JUSTIFIABLE" homicides by either LEO or the result of those not LEO defending themselves during the commission of a crime being perpetrated on them , this is where stand your ground could be said to exist .
The last catagory would be the "ACCIDENTAL", which that name IMO is wrong , there should be and are no "accidents" , ithis category is brought about by sheer human negligence ..
The Martin /Zimmerman case was never about stand your ground , and the defense never invoked it , yes it was talked about outside the trial , but it was not a factor during the trial . what was the deciding factor i believe was the case presented for self defense of a physical assault . So with that little bit of opinion there that was posted , i would have to disagree on that particular idea.
Thats the FBI data for the stated time
Those numbers are a good start and they do show a spike in usage in 2020 Irregardless, there is no denying that .
as low as they are for all firearms use im thinking they did not include suicides from what some reports and statements by Gun control advocates say . meaning they might be treating it as amental health issue rather than a gun issue.
problem is we have no idea of the usage or how many fit in which categories I mention . Which i think would help in understanding the over all issue .
Yeah, I looked at the embedded article, as well as its attachments. To the good...at least there were some attachments. To the negative...I was left trying to figure out how the hell they arrived at some of their conclusions, after looking at some of the attachments. I'd go through the FBI stats, but I don't have time for that.
I use to look at the uniform crime reports , what the FBI uses to formulate their stats , but even that is only partial info since not all states or jurisdictions report . so at best we have partial numbers .
I finally did go to the seeded article , what i found was not much meat , but an awful lot of "sauce".
Not exactly what i would call investigative journalism.
As I see it, between the proliferation of guns with increasing gun violence and the disregarding and vilifying of sensible adherence to controlling guidelines to prevent the spread of the virus, America should succeed in decreasing its excess population - so keep it up, Yankees.
[deleted]
I don't understand, Perrie, how you can consider my post taunting without considering his taunting as well.
Probably because your comment included a nasty personal insult and his does not...
I'm going to take the time to explain this to you since you normally don't get tickets. You made your comment personal, while his is just a general comment on the state of things.