Skip to comments.Stunning Report: "Stand Your Ground" Laws Responsible for 500-700 Homicides Per year
Posted on 06/12/2012 5:28:59 AM PDT by Afisra
Research conducted at Texas A&M University concludes that far from reducing crime rates, so called 'Stand your Ground' laws are actually responsible for a drastic increase in the number of homicides nationwide each year.
(Excerpt) Read more at radio.woai.com ...
Ah, the logic of unilateral disarmament. By that logic, it would make sense to disarm the police as well, to avoid escalating the situation.
“the only real way to keep these folks from imposing their will on the rest of us is to oppose them with violence”
That’s evident in the case of Fast and Furious and Eric Holder. They’ll continue to do what they want to do until they are physically stopped from doing it. Hold up the law, morality, common decency, or even simple courtesy as a “barrier” to their behavior and they just walk right on by it, daring you to stop them.
If you’ve ever dealt with an alcoholic or drug addict,
they act in exactly this same way.
Well, .... duh!
But killing babies in the womb is not a right.
Our government is soooooo wrong sometimes and I hope to see the abortion laws overturned in my lifetime.
Of course, Obama's girls will be disappointed.
Page two has something interesting as well...
Yeah, some real twists and turns in this one.
oh, so the criminals are armed
yeah, everyone knows the criminals are armed.
But the left asserts the criminals are armed to defend against the victims????????????????
Ludicrous, ridiculous, depraved. Now criminals have a right to an unarmed victim????????????????
Corrupter. Where's the proof that any, let alone a majority, of those stopped dead, were, voluntarily that is, on their last jaunt in criminal enterprising?
That is, the positive spillover is somewhat akin to "A stitch in time saves nine".
I see now that I forgot to add you in my reply. My apologies. Good to see you're following your own thread.
The article missed it, not the report.
See reply 33 and 56 (snippet of pg 2 of the report)
This is typical of Leftying lying by misuse of language. Do not think that it is not intentional.
“... showed a sharp increase in justifiable homicide in the years immediately after they approved Stand Your Ground laws.”
...ah...the learning curve the perps go thru before realizing THEY have now (justifiably) become the target.
They must have caught some crap for their headline; it now reads “Homicides”, not “Murders”.
Paging John Lott
LOL! You said what I was going to say, and you said it better than I would have!
That’s a feature, not a bug. The people getting killed, NEED to get killed.
In the New America, research and university should never be used in the same sentence. It’s politics. Nothing but politics.
Law responsible for 500-700 peoples lives saved and 500-700 murderers dead.
500 to 700 dead criminals per year.
So, “Stand Your Ground” works!
That’s 500 to 700 less repeat offenders per year.
I would say SYG laws PREVENT up to 700 murders per year. So bully for them.
Yeah I had an Uncle and a Cousin that were substance abusers. I agree with your assement.
Liberal propaganda is sooooo easy to spot. They think they are being clever, yet, their thoughts are that of small children.
They must have zombie criminals where these researchers are. Around here, when a potential victim kills the perp, it provides very "meaninful deterrence" to all the subsequent crimes the perp would have committed.
“...they must first take affirmative steps to defuse the situation”
IMHO, a perp contracting a sudden case of terminal high-velocity lead poisoning will most affirmatively “defuse” the situation.
When did the Economics Department become part of The Law School?
Did they receive a healthy grant from The Brady Foundation, The Joyce Foundation or other Anti-Gun groups to come up with this slanted report?
I have to wonder what the Money Trail looks looks like for this "report".
They always have. Democrats passed Jim Crow laws explicitly to prevent blacks from defending themselves from lynch mobs.
(Also, there is no shortage of nations that passed gun control laws just a few years before mass killings began.)
Could there be a tie in with the number of states that have passed Concealed Carry between 1980 and 2012?
Another poster suggested that FR add a “like” button. I am all for that because I “LIKE” your post.
Seems to me like the study tried to be rational, yet the typical idiotic and agenda-driven journalism major typed up a headline to create a stir, solely to help circulation. As usual.
More killings of perps is actually a very good thing.
Law abiding citizens, OTOH, contribute an average of $8K per year in taxes if they work full time. So you need to have five full time workers to support each perp in prison (excluding all other necessary government services) or 32 of them to support each perp which has not yet been put in prison.
Putting perps in the morgue at the hands of armed citizens is, by far, the most cost effective solution. Nothing else even comes close. We should be giving armed citizens a trophy and paying them a bounty every time they perform such a public service.
Just curious, but where did the requirement for a person to run from an encounter, even in their own home come from?
Was it one of those old anti-black laws to prevent them from shooting the KKK when they came to the front door forcing you to run out the back while your house was torched?
They specifically said that they defined justifiable homicide as only killing a felon during commission of a felony. It did not include self-defense, etc.
This “study” does not prove anything other than a few correlations. Their conclusions are probably not valid.
I expect that John will be looking at this very shortly.
I notice that the study “examines whether aiding self-defense in this way deters crime or, alternatively, escalates violence.” The two are not contradictory or mutually exclusive.
Self defense can be a deadly activity. Keep it up.
Appears that the authors don’t know the difference between SYG and the Castle Doctorine.
Appears that the authors also feel that it’s better to submit to rape, robbery or assault than to defend one’s self.
The notion of self defense is alien to those who view you as a candidate for human sacrifice.
It also helps to point out that the criminals should not have been planning to commit burglaries and robberies in the first place. Had they behaved properly, the situations would not have arisen in the first place. Of course, it could then be said that the burglary and robbery victims should not have been in possession of such property that would tempt those of us who are less fortunate....And on and on and on. It’s a simple matter of redistribution./s
AND chlorinates the gene pool.
Upon reflection, the only sensible course is to reroute the robbers and burglars from property owners who espouse SYG to property owners who believe in reasoning and non-violence.
All libs could tie a yellow ribbon or some such to the mailbox. Nothing fancy or imposing, just a small notice.
That way, all would be satisfied.
The SYG folks would be left alone, the libs would get opportunities to show tolerace, and perps would not have so much danger in their chosen occupation.
Question: Who are the victims of shootings (the intended victim or the one instigating a crime against the intended victim who happens to be armed?
FYI: my sister and brother-in-law went to A&M. They still have Gore stickers on the bumpers.
The Cadet corps is pretty bad ass, though. A cadet pulled a sword on an opposing cheerleader for somehow desecrating Kyle Field during a football game.
A&M mascot is a collie named Reveille (sic?) and you WILL not disrespect Reveille, the line of past Reveilles, I think, are buried on Kyle Field (but that might just be a rumor). Great agriculture and veterinary school.
A&M has a very colorful history.
OK, I'll take a swing at that pitch.
I'm a common law fan. In fact, I'm fanatical about it, because it incorporates over 1000 years of the study of unchanging human nature.
I can't wrap my head around the APPLICATION of SYG laws. The principle, or concept, is easy to understand - it's just the Castle Doctrine moved to the street.
The problem is that physical engagements that can lead to deadly force happen in lots and lots of ways AWAY from your castle.
To put it simply, if someone kicks in your door at 2am and you kill them, the presumption that you had nothing to do with it (that you have "clean hands") is obvious. Not to say that the law can't ask if, for example, the dead guy is your daughter's boyfriend - but a presumption in your favor, sure.
The common law doctrine outside your castle is "retreat to the wall" - which means, do your best to stay out of trouble, but if trouble follows you, engage your right of self-defense up to and including deadly force.
It seems to me that SYG laws, by taking away "retreat to the wall" not only protect you in the case of unprovoked assault (where conventional self-defense law should work) but also eliminate the "stay out of trouble" part of the common law, which is as wise today as it was in 1066.
I know you waive SYG if you are the aggressor - but what about situations like bar fights and street hassles where Solomon himself can't figure out who did or said what to set it off? I've always been taught, and I teach others, that carrying means you have MORE responsibility to avoid stupid conflicts. It seems to me that SYG weakens this important rule.
Can any Florida FReepers enlighten me about how it actually works?
So, at the top end, about 14 homicides more per year per state. That’s about what we have on one weekend in Chicago from drive-by shootings.
Stand your Ground is cleaning out the gene pool.
I would stand to defend that every one of these “murders”, (as defined by folks that pick up a handgun with two fingers and screech “Ewww!”), has been where John/Jane Q. Public have been the target of thieves, thugs, murders, rapists, or gang members, and have exercised their basic human right of self-preservation.
I challenge this announcement of increase, i.e., 500 to 700, because that is far too large for a statistical reality. You can’t bat 100 today, and 300 tomorrow! You can’t play golf with a 135 score today, and get a 69 tomorrow.
More bad statistics. And self-defense isn’t murder anyway.
???? that sounds like a bizarre interpretation of justifiable homicide.
like a definition of their own making.