SHARE
Don't you feel safer now?
It’s a Jon McNaughton, so you know it’s good!

A study in the January issue of JAMA Internal Medicine finds that Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, passed in 2005, resulted in an “abrupt and sustained increase in the monthly homicide rate” compared to the period before the law was enacted under former Gov. Sad Jeb Bush. Homicide rates overall saw a 24.4 percent increase, while homicides involving firearms went up 31.6 percent. Who would have guessed?

Among other data, the study found the monthly homicide rate in Florida prior to the law’s enactment had actually been declining slightly. According to Miami New Times, which shelled out for the full article, not just the abstract, the study also found a 32 percent increase in the monthly homicide rate among African Americans, from 36 deaths per month to 48 after “stand your ground” went into effect. Also, a comparison with states that didn’t have “stand your ground” laws showed no change in homicide rates in those states, suggesting that the laws make deadly shootings a lot likelier.

Happily, the National Rifle Association found a fatal flaw in the study! Sure, they say, overall deaths may be up, but the study didn’t examine whether maybe a lot of those people just plain needed to be shot. Carefully putting “the study” in scare quotes, thus proving it’s unreliable, the NRA piece explains,

Indeed, the JAMA authors admit near the end of their paper that “[o]ur study examined the effect of the Florida law on homicide and homicide by firearm, not on crime and public safety.”

This caveat is necessary because “the study” completely ignores the essential question of whether the firearm-related deaths it focuses on arose from unlawful aggression or lawful self-defense […]

In short, because the authors don’t account for the differences between those homicides which are justifiable self-defense and those which are not, their “study” fails to provide any real insight on the effects of the law.

Yes, they really are brushing off a significantly higher homicide rate because maybe a lot of those deaths were completely justified. They don’t know for sure, but maybe, which equals “probably,” right? More people shot to death isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as long as they deserved it.

This would be a good spot to mention another national study of “stand your ground” laws, by Texas A & M University in 2012, which similarly found the laws were associated with higher homicide rates, but also (sorry, NRA) didn’t find any decrease in crime:

The prospect of facing additional self-defense does not deter crime. Specifically, we find no evidence of deterrence effects on burglary, robbery, or aggravated assault […] In contrast, we find significant evidence that the laws increase homicides.

The 2012 study’s co-author, Mark Hoekstra, told NPR in 2013 that, in the 23 states that then had adopted “stand your ground,” the laws “lower the cost of using lethal force,” and “as a result, you get more of it.” While Hoekstra couldn’t rule out the possibility that all 500 to 700 more homicides per year were the result of self defense, it seems unlikely, since police classification of deadly shootings as “justifiable homicides” didn’t show a similar jump. There also didn’t seem to be any evidence that criminals were shooting more people, either. But since “stand your ground” laws remove the obligation to avoid a deadly confrontation, there may be more incentive to settle a dispute with a gun:

“One possibility for the increase in homicide is that perhaps [in cases where] there would have been a fistfight … now, because of stand your ground laws, it’s possible that those escalate into something much more violent and lethal,” says Hoekstra.

But, hey, if the dead guy deserved it, no problem! It’s all about fear, and if you yell “I am in fear for my life!” you can probably get away with anything. You really need a gun, don’t you? And if you have one, you need another. Why not pick up a case, now that you probably don’t have to worry Barack Obama will come take them away?

Meanwhile, back in Florida, state Sen. Rob Bradley introduced a bill in December that would make it even easier to win a “stand your ground” case, shifting the burden of proof from the shooter to the person who got shot. So if you claim you were standing your ground, whoever you shot would have to prove you weren’t defending yourself, which could get a trifle difficult if the target ends up dead. That seems like a great incentive to make sure you finish ’em off.

[JAMA / Miami New Times / NRA / Texas A & M via the Internet Archive / NPR / Miami New Times]

$
Donate with CCDonate with CC
  • Nounverb911
  • Msgr_MΩment

    Study Finds Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law Increases Homicides. Is That Bad?

    This depends on how you define ‘fittest’.

    • onedollarjuana

      Maybe not. Fewer Floridians.

  • Swampgas_Man

    So what happens if BOTH of the involved claim Standing Ground? Do they flip a coin?

    • It depends on several factors, like how big ones gun is, who is whiter, who you voted for, and how high you are on the hill from which the shots were fired. There can be only one!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqcLjcSloXs

      • Historicat

        I thought it came down to whoever looks more like Clint Eastwood in a serape.

    • shivaskeeper

      Whoever is alive at the end wins. Really the only way to claim stand your ground is to kill whoever you shoot at so they can’t make any claim against you.

      • Celtic_Gnome

        Hey, it worked for Zimmie. Trayvon Martin would have had a great Stand Your Ground defense if he’d lived. I mean, I would have believed him if he said he feared for his life.

    • mardam422

      That’s called a duel. I think that’s against the law, even in Florida.

    • Michael Smith

      Its like trying to figure out whether something is a block or a charge in basketball. I’ve never been able to understand that one.

    • magyar of infinite power

      Is one of them blah/brown?

    • Celtic_Gnome

      Like many other things in life, whoever’s still breathing at the end wins.

  • dslindc

    Yes, but facts have a known liberal bias!

    • Nounverb911

      “There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts.”

      –Nellie Scotty Nellie Yuge

      • Tallmutha

        I call bullshit on that quote. No way she finds that “unfortunate.”

  • Spotts1701, Resistance Pilot

    So if you claim you were standing your ground, whoever you shot would have to prove you weren’t defending yourself, which could get a trifle difficult if the target ends up dead.

    Again it’s a feature, not a bug.

    Just wait until Congress starts digging in on CCW reciprocity and repealing “gun free school zone” laws. Then we’ll have so much freedom (to get shot)!

    • IOnlyLikeCats

      When does America get classified as a third world country?

      • Spotts1701, Resistance Pilot

        12:01pm on Friday, January 20, 2017.

      • Marceline

        January 20th.

      • Heyzeus Ahchay

        Jan. 20

      • arglebargle

        According to international election observers we already are.

        • Regret

          I have personally always thought so, nice to see the professionals agree with me.
          And it’s not just elections, when was the last time you had a mayor overhaul of drinking water pipes and your sewage system?
          If the number of years is closer to Somalia’s than your age, then you are not doing so well.

        • anwisok

          Nu-uh. They only checked NC!

          • magyar of infinite power

            Not true, they weighed in on Texas a few years ago

      • natoslug

        January 20, 2017.

    • Celtic_Gnome

      Since Florida was planning to debate allowing guns in airports next week, we should see a lot of “good guy with a gun” bullshit leading up to that.

  • Toomush_Inferesistance

    Wait till black people quit standing their ground to other black people, and start standing their ground to white people? We’ll need to negotiate this with a whole lotta votes…

  • MynameisBlarney

    I am shoc…

    No….wait….

    It wasn’t like they weren’t warned about this very thing before they made murder legal.

  • IOnlyLikeCats

    When people started making those jokes about criminals blaming the victims in cases other than rape, THAT WAS NOT A SUGGESTION.

  • memzilla Ω

    I guess the real problem is that this country isn’t turning into a shit-blasted hellscape FAST ENOUGH for some people (who have Rs after their names).

  • Oblios_Cap

    What!? I thought studies of any kind on gun violence were unconstitutional.

  • I have this sinking feeling we’re one bad day away from Kristalnacht or the Purge happening here.

  • Michael Smith

    What’s interesting is that people are apparently aware of the passing of the law and change their behavior accordingly. Laws don’t usually change peoples’ behavior so quickly like this. It almost looks like gun nuts sit around waiting for a law like this to be passed, and then decided to settle scores with people.

    • Oblios_Cap

      I don’t have anybody to settle a score with. Unfair!

      • Celtic_Gnome

        I don’t have any scores to settle so serious it can only be done with a gun.

    • natoslug

      We need to come up with a scientific name for this. I nominate “The Zimmerman Effect.”

    • Thaumaturgist

      If I get just a scosh crazier than I already am, I’m going to get me some guns and stand my ground against some of these Republicans.

      • magyar of infinite power

        I’m one press conference away from buying my first. And I don’t know if that is sarcasm anymore.

        • TakingAmes

          My husband and I have been having this conversation about purchasing our first firearm in hopes of protecting ourselves from the shitgibbons, but then my colleague at work reminded me that the shitgibbons will have the predator drones and we’re all fucked anyway. So there’s that.

  • Michael R
    • arglebargle

      Black cat is black. Better be careful.

  • Mavenmaven

    Waiting for when Trump starts tweeting to his followers to “stand their ground” against his enemies or whatever and the violence starts.

  • calliecallie

    I am completely mesmerized by that “how fast can you spot the bear” thing in the ads. There’s a bear?

  • Good_Gawd_Yall

    Could anyone direct me to another planet where I could establish a colony? I really don’t want to live here any longer. Thanks.

    • Regret

      Norway is pretty nice.
      Cold though.

    • Crystalclear12

      Think we could get a group rate?

    • Usedtobeyellerdawg

      Of course! I just need you to go stand at the edge of a cornfield in Idaho, say, around 2:00 a.m. and we’ll pick you right up. We’ll be the ones with all the flashy lights and woo-woo noises. We don’t really need all that, but it does enhance the experience. We’re currently out of anal probes though, so if you could bring your own, we’d appreciate it.

  • beingreleased

    Good thing we have a Law & Order President who will solve this problem with Stopping and Frisking suspicious looking black people (I know “suspicious looking black people” is redundant.)

  • baconzgood

    Making it easier to shoot people causes more people to get shot?

    Who da thunk it.

    • magyar of infinite power

      And making it legal-er reduces crime rates.

  • mardam422

    See, the “did they need to be shot” thingy is actually accounted for. Crime rate didn’t go up after stand your ground. So where are all the “deserved to be shot” people coming from? Could be more zombies, but can’t tell for sure from “the study”. And comparisons with other non-SYG states also helps to account for that, unless all the “deserved to be shot” people are streaming across the border from Georgia and Alabama (could be, I guess). “The study” doesn’t say that, because there are still other possibilities. But it’s reeeealy a good correlation, if not proven causation. Maybe someone should do more studies on this?? Nahhhhhh!

    • LesBontemps

      Well, we could look at the CDC studies on gun violence, except that Congress won’t let them do any.

  • memzilla Ω

    It won’t be long until the Rethuglicans get the courts to rule that the Second Amendment requires Americans to own guns, and be fined if they don’t.

    • Nounverb911

      Didn’t some town in Idaho try that already?

      • anwisok

        Didn’t find any in Idaho, but here’s an article about five US towns that require gun ownership.

      • CalvinianChoice

        Kennesaw, Georgia- although I wouldn’t be surprised to find that others followed their lead.

        • Celtic_Gnome

          How about someplace I’ve heard of. It’s one thing to mandate ownership in Bumfuck, Southern State, population 700. Let’s see gun ownership mandated in a city of 100,000 or more. Travel to that city would drop to zero in a heartbeat.

    • Jeffocaster in the East

      Using the Obamacare model, if you can be required to have healthcare, then security in the form a gun. QED

      • TX Dept. of Brad Relations

        Heh, great minds Jeff!

      • JustPixelz (((Ω)))

        The beauty of it is, with a gun you don’t need health insurance. Just go to the hospital and demand treatment. Pro tip: Do NOT let them use general anesthesia on you.

    • TX Dept. of Brad Relations

      Obamacare but with guns! You have to have a gun and there’s a fine if you don’t, but we’ll give you tax subsidies or discounts so you can pay for one!

      • Celtic_Gnome

        Do these NRA lackeys in Washington ever worry that those people buying into the government is evil screed are also armed to the teeth thanks to their efforts?

  • WiscoJoe

    LIES! Homicides only happen in Chicago!

  • ViveLaRésistance

    “Studies” such as this are one reason that things like “universities” and “journals” and “scholars” will immediately be outlawed by the incoming plutocracy.

    • mackafritz

      The only “studies” allowed will come from Big Oil Institute and the NRA.

      • ViveLaRésistance

        And only after they pay a licensing fee to Trump Enterprises.

  • Bitter Scribe

    1. Law makes it easier to justify shooting people to death.
    2. More people get shot to death.
    3. NRA says this is because they were justifiably shot.

    Can anyone say “circular reasoning”?

    • TJ Barke

      There’s no money in it for the NRA if less people are getting shot…

      • WIDTAP

        If the victims were really all that upset about being shot, they would have had their own guns.
        – Gun Salesmen Everywhere

      • Celtic_Gnome

        But, every dead citizen is one less NRA customer.

        • TJ Barke

          They’ll just gouge the living ones harder.

    • HogeyeGrex

      4. Profit!

    • arensb

      No, they’re saying that the “stand your ground” law led to a sharp increase in the number of people attacking innocent civilians (and needing to be shot).

  • SpideySenser

    “More people shot to death isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as long as they d̶e̶s̶e̶r̶v̶e̶d̶ ̶i̶t̶” are blah.

    • TakingAmes

      Six of one, a half dozen of the other…

  • Suttree

    I don’t like guns or people dying from violence. Can we just all get in a line to kick Donnie in his shin, for making us fear for our lives?

    • janecita

      Can we wear steel toe boots?

  • Unpresidented_in_Seattle

    Do the stats include Florida Man shooting himself in the foot or his wherevers?

  • Picabo
  • janecita

    Is it wrong, that I hope that Trump’s supporters start “standing their ground” against each other?

    • Nounverb911

      Yes, but keep doing it anyway.

  • JustPixelz (((Ω)))

    Right-to-life Republicans LOVE LOVE LOVE Stand Your Ground laws because they eliminate the time-consuming need for a Constitutional trial and a just outcome. Just let the citizens be police, jury and executioner. It’s efficient!

    • Serai 1

      Jesus fucking Christ, these assholes and their idiotic Wild West Hollywood fantasies. Even fucking Dodge City had the sense to outlaw guns within city limits, but try telling that to these goddamn coprocephalic troglodytes.

  • onedollarjuana

    Just one more reason to not visit Florida. As if I needed another.

    • Nounverb911

      Is Trump at Mar-A-Lago on your list too, also?

      • magyar of infinite power

        Flying roaches should have been enough for any sane person

  • Toomush_Inferesistance

    I’m so excited! Today is the day President-elect Trump is going to give us his intelligence briefing on why not to blame the Russians!….

    • Nounverb911

      Didn’t he promise that for Tuesday or Wednesday?

      • shivaskeeper

        He did. However the agencies told him it would be today, after they briefed the actual President on Thursday. That was why he went on the Twitter earlier this week to claim it was suspicious the agencies moved the meeting. The meeting was never moved. It was never set for earlier in the week, except in his own mind. This fucking guy.

      • Celtic_Gnome

        Remember, he’s on White People Time.

    • TX Dept. of Brad Relations

      What’s the over/under on it being cancelled? Or on being an excuse to launch some new stupid venture. (Trump Brand Underwear?)

      • WIDTAP

        I got $20 on Trump tweeting some insane summary that the CIA and FBI have to deny ever having said within 24 hours.

        • TX Dept. of Brad Relations

          Smart bet.

      • Toomush_Inferesistance

        How risk-averse are you?…

        • TX Dept. of Brad Relations

          Not very…I have this here shiny nickel and I’m ready to gamble!

    • Hemp Dogbane

      His presence is making me feel uneasy.

  • Crystalclear12

    Now that there isn’t a black in office and the Republicans have control of the government what will the NRA, the advertising branch of the gun industry, do to drive sales?

    Their scare tactics worked, they got what they said was needed to be “safe”.
    Now what?

    • shivaskeeper

      Muslims, no-go neighborhoods, blacks, browns, LBGT’s, especially T’s in the bathrooms, the other in all it’s guises. Same as they used to.

    • Tallmutha

      When a Democrat is in office: Buy more guns before they come grab ’em!
      When a Republican is in office: Whoo hoo, it’s blah huntin’ season! Come get yer guns!

      • TX Dept. of Brad Relations

        Notice the theme – keep buying guns…they should really just go ahead and change their name to Gun Manufacturer’s Association of America. (If you rearrange the letters, you get MAGA!)

    • WIDTAP

      Oh they still have a good 18 months relitigating everything about the election and Hillary. Then 6-12 months on how the Dems will pick up seats and overthrow Real Americans’ (TM) right to bring open carry into schools and Disney World.

    • LesBontemps

      Commies under the bed?

  • Lefty Frizzell

    Of course these shootings were lawful. That’s the point – they were made lawful with the SYG law, which encouraged shootings that previously would have been murder.

    In common with taxation, and the refusal to see the evidence of their own theory – that they were on the left of the Laffer peak and should have increased taxes – the response to this will be that the laws are not pro gun enough yet.

    • Bub the Hoohah! loving Zombie

      Of course. It’s the conservative way. They spend billions to influence the political process to create a legal/regulatory climate that effectively makes tax evasion, theft, murder/assault with a deadly weapon and environmental damage legal, and then brag afterwards about how they obey the letter of the law. Technically true, perhaps, but if the people with the most to gain effectively wrote the laws, it becomes a meaningless point.

      This is what will happen with Drumpf in the White House. Gingrich has already openly stated that he should just pardon people guilty of corruption. The law will be whatever they say it is – and who is going to stop them?

      • Serai 1

        Maybe now people will finally understand why all those little elections for school board and city council and mayor are so important. Ignore them, and this is where you end up – a country effectively owned by one party.

  • Thaumaturgist

    The thing from the NRA. Maybe it’s a Poe. Anyone think of that?

  • Unpresidented_in_Seattle

    Stand You Ground translates to on why waste a bullet on a warning shot.

  • Nounverb911
  • Royal Ugly Dude

    the study didn’t examine whether maybe a lot of those people just plain needed to be shot.

    True fact: In Texas, “he needed killing” is a valid defense for manslaughter.

    • Serai 1

      How does “he needed killing” not make it murder?

  • JustPixelz (((Ω)))

    Nothing is true until Alex Jones says it is.

  • Unspeakable Deeds

    So, does this mean if I was living in Florida and I chose to break into someone’s house and kill them, could I argue that I felt that my life was in danger, thus killing the person was self-defense?

    • Tallmutha

      After all, when you think about it, aren’t all of our lives in danger? At all times?

      • Toomush_Inferesistance

        Feelings are true….

    • JustPixelz (((Ω)))

      SYG laws typically (always?) require you have the right to be where you are defending yourself. That is to avoid using it the way you described.

    • magyar of infinite power

      I don’t know the answer; and I’m shocked there hasn’t been a test case.

    • Serai 1

      Depends. Are you white?

  • Nounverb911
  • exinkwretch

    You’re laboring under the incorrect assumption that the NRA and its legion of gun-humping morons gives a fuck about facts.

  • IOnlyLikeCats

    When the Constitution says “innocent until proven guilty,” this is not what it (or the Founders) meant.

    • Tallmutha

      “Well, I proved he was guilty. By shooting him.”

      • sgt. jmk of the résistance

        As Ed Meese once famously said, “you don’t have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That’s contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.”

        I will just take a moment to remind you that this was said by a man who was the Attorney General of the United States under Reagan.

        • Tallmutha

          And God, are we going to miss him under Sessions.

          • sgt. jmk of the résistance

            These fucknobs will make the Reagan Disaster look like the halcyon days of yore.

  • TX Dept. of Brad Relations

    OT: This is from Daily Kos, so grain of salt and all, but it sounds like Der Trumpenfuhrer is being a dickhead again:

    “Trump has told all politically appointed U.S. ambassadors around the world that they must return home by Inauguration Day, full stop, end of story, consequences be damned.

    And the consequences are plenty. For starters, it means that America won’t have diplomats in place in many countries by the time Trump is sworn in. That’s a situation that would endure for months, since the Senate has to actually confirm each new ambassador, one by one. It’s also liable to frighten our allies and embolden our not-so-allies, though if anything, that’s probably to Trump’s liking.

    But it’s for exactly these reasons that past presidents have always made exceptions, even for political appointees from the other party, to ensure continuity in our diplomatic relations, and also just not to be raging dicks to people who’ve gone overseas to serve our country. Lots of them, for instance, have families and young children abroad with them—children who are in the middle of their school year. Without visas, these people can’t remain in their host countries and are scrambling to either find a way to stay, or to uproot their kids and place them in new schools back home.

    It’s fucking obnoxious, is what it is”

    http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/5/1617543/-What-a-jackhole-Trump-orders-all-ambassadors-to-yank-their-kids-out-of-school-and-come-home-ASAP

    • Carpe Vagenda

      Yeah, this is definitely going to boost Kellyanne’s chances of getting the twins into a DC cave dweller school.

      • theblackdog

        I can only imagine the recess beatings her kids will endure

        “Your mom’s boss cost my daddy his job! *sock*”

        • Carpe Vagenda

          I kind of doubt it’ll get that far. I’m betting that whole thing is an excuse to leave the kids in Jersey with whoever is actually raising them without looking like someone who left her kids in Jersey being raised by someone else voluntarily.

    • HogeyeGrex

      What fucking right does he have to tell them anything until he’s sworn in?

      • TX Dept. of Brad Relations

        Good point, something something transition team, I would guess. I dunno.

    • janecita
    • MynameisBlarney

      He’s absolutely fucking clueless.

    • Royal Ugly Dude

      For the time being, any important business can be handled by the Russian Embassies.

    • Serai 1

      The Annoying Orange has no interest in being President. He wants to be king, and he’ll use all the loopholes and shell-shock around him to destroy whatever he can of the government in favor of “do whatever I say or else”. And there are far too many fucking selfish, evil assholes around him who are happy to ride his fascist coattails.

  • Nounverb911
  • therblig

    I shot a man in Reno, just because his presence made me feel uneasy.

    needs work.

    • Nounverb911

      “One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I’ll never know.”
      –Groucho Marx

      • Jerry Noneofyourbizz

        But he was stealing your pajamas so you had every right to shoot him.

  • TheGrandWaz00

    The SYG states need to pass a law that you get 10 times your defense costs back when you win your case. That’ll teach The State to interfere with your 2nd Amendment rights. Maybe throw in an all expenses paid to Disneyworld as a bonus.

    • JustPixelz (((Ω)))

      IMO all claims of self-defense need to be heard by a jury. Don’t leave it up to the police chief or the DA.

  • JustPixelz (((Ω)))

    Gun death rates vary from state-to-state for many reasons but are much lower in the Northeast (where I live in relative safety) versus the lethal South.

    Connecticut = 5.0 per 100K population
    Florida = 11.5 per 100K

    • Celtic_Gnome

      To be fair, it’s just too fucking cold in the northeast right now to go out and shoot someone.

  • ltmcdies

    I am shocked..shocked I tell you, that a law allowing any old idiot to fire away at anyone who looks sideways at them would increase the death by hot lead stats.

    absolutely “shocked”…

  • goonemeritus

    Were any guns harmed by this law?

    • MynameisBlarney

      Not the guns!
      Won’t someone please think of the guns!?

  • azeyote

    it’s the little toddlers you have to worry about – they’ll even shoot their parents or their siblings –

    • TJ Barke

      Heartless little buggers.

    • Fancy Meau-Faux

      Super Toddler Predators!!!! OH NO!!!!

  • geoffalnutt

    Please. Everyone knows Stand Your Ground simply means “shoot each other all the time”.

  • Toomush_Inferesistance

    So….if I feel the CEOs of any stocks I might own are out to harm me, I can just stand my ground? Cool!…. how about if the head of the NRA is making my life dangerous?…

  • OneYieldRegular

    And yet Republicans have blocked federal funding for studies of the health effects of guns so as not to interfere with gun manufacturer profits.

    • laineypc

      Well thank god some doctors and academics are finding the bucks to study it and so far the feds can’t stop police departments from collecting the raw data.

      • Serai 1

        It’d be nice if they DID something with that data, though. Like, say, issuing annual reports, or linking together to form a national database. You know, things that would actually make sense.

    • Serai 1

      That’s not ironic; it’s part of the plan. This is all a huge tapestry to turn our country into a war zone occupied by the poor and dying, while the rich eat everything.

  • TX Dept. of Brad Relations

    On topic for once( Salon via Daily Kos):

    Armed for 2017: New state gun laws shrink “gun-free zones,” expand access to concealed carry without training or permit

    http://www.salon.com/2017/01/04/armed-for-2017-new-state-gun-laws-shrink-gun-free-zones-expand-access-to-concealed-carry-without-training-or-permit/

    • The Librarian

      I weep to think how many more lives will be lost with these atrocious laws.

    • Serai 1

      What was that about Obama taking everybody’s guns away?

  • TX Dept. of Brad Relations

    So this is the republican’s vision for america – more guns, more shootings, but no comprehensive healthcare coverage?

    • magyar of infinite power

      Dead people don’t get sick

    • shivaskeeper

      Just make sure you kill whoever you’re shooting at so they can’t counter your claim of SYG. It also has the bonus of removing the need for healthcare for whoever you shoot, so no health coverage needed. It’s sheer brilliance. /s

    • Serai 1

      The poorz have a sadly low rate of killing themselves, so they need help.

    • anonymous

      “So this is the republican’s vision for america” Apparently it is the vision of a lot of democrats and independents as well judging by reality. A vision of a nation where you are allowed to defend yourself and your home.

      • TX Dept. of Brad Relations

        You can and always could defend yourself and your home…whether you need a damn hand cannon everywhere you go to do it is the issue.

    • SpaceCaptainWarlock

      Absolutely. Stand Your Ground laws are great tools to divide people — literally having them shoot at each other. It makes it easier to make things like this happen:
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/claiming-mandate-gop-congress-lays-plans-to-propel-sweeping-conservative-agenda/2017/01/01/9840338a-ceee-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html

  • Cock Blockula

    in the 23 states that then had adopted
    “stand your ground,” the laws “lower the cost of using lethal force,”
    and “as a result, you get more of it.”

    See, Supply-side Economics do work!
    The invisible hand of the market then pulls the visible trigger…

    • SuspectedDemocrat

      It’s like a tax cut for using your gun! Who wouldn’t want that?

  • Michael R
  • Resistance Fighter Callyson

    In short, because the authors don’t account for the differences between those homicides which are justifiable self-defense and those which are not, their “study” fails to provide any real insight on the effects of the law.

    And there would be significantly more of those justifiable shootings in Florida than in states that don’t have stand your ground laws because…?

    • TakingAmes

      Because Florida.

  • Resistance Fighter Callyson

    Meanwhile, back in Florida, state Sen. Rob Bradley introduced a bill in December that would make it even easier to win a “stand your ground” case, shifting the burden of proof from the shooter to the person who got shot.

    So now the victim is presumed guilty? That’s just fucking great…

    • BrendaKay

      And since our Supreme Court is in tatters, who knows if you could get a majority of them to agree that goes against the presumption of innocence and strike it down.

      • Serai 1

        Now you’re starting to see just how the whole thing works.

    • Serai 1

      You didn’t realize that was part of the point?

    • Resistance Engineer Red Bird

      Only if black. Remember that.

    • anonymous

      “So now the victim is presumed guilty? That’s just fucking great…”

      If the person is shot in my house after breaking in at 2am then yeah he is presumed guilty. And yeah it is fucking great.

      • Resistance Fighter Callyson

        Hi troll!

        In your straw man situation, the person who was shot would be shown to have entered a house illegally, and there would be evidence that the shooting was justifiable. In other words, a very different situation than the one described in the bill. So what’s your point?

    • VagendaofNastyWoman

      One might think that this is all a cynical attempt by the gun industry to make people feel more comfortable buying and using guns.

  • Jerry Noneofyourbizz

    So, NRA, could you show us this significant drop in burglaries, robberies, home invasions, assaults and rapes that ‘stand your ground’ is supposed to prevent? It seems to me that data would be the best argument. Unless it doesn’t exist.

    • Beanz&Berryz

      You are clearly trapped in the old “fact-based” way of thinking…

      • JustDon’tSayIntelligence

        Facts? Nobody uses the facts machine anymore. Everyone just emails now.

        • Beanz&Berryz

          Courier if you’re really modern…

          • JustDon’tSayIntelligence

            Times-Roman or GTFO!

          • Beanz&Berryz

            Arial for sans-serif…

          • Naytch

            By chariot instead of courier?!? That would take a Miracle!!

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FXH69LabyPw

          • GHERKINS OF RESTIVENESS!

            Twattering is what all the cool people do! Just ask Cool Guy Clownstick-in-chief!

  • theblackdog

    But…but…more good guys with guns means that there are less shootings! At least that’s what the pretzel-logic of the NRA keeps telling me!

  • TundraGrifter

    “In short, because the authors don’t account for the differences between those homicides which are justifiable self-defense and those which are not, their ‘study’ fails to provide any real insight on the effects of the law.”

    Since the law actually changed the definition of “justifiable self-defense,” that would be quite a trick.

  • The Librarian

    Happiness is a Warm Gun?

    :(

    • theCryptofishist

      Don’t put it in your microwave to warm it up, though.

  • Lance Thrustwell

    I’m with Chris Rock. Have all the guns you want, but bullets should be $100 apiece. Actually, let’s make that $200. Inflation, doncha know.

    • Serai 1

      He said 5K each. I’m good with that.

  • myexisinthetrunk

    “lower the cost of using lethal force,”
    Chris Rock :

    “You don’t need no gun control, you know what you
    need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets,
    that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars…
    five thousand dollars per bullet…

    • suziq

      I love that bit, I recite it to people all the time!! I should watch that again.
      Is it true that you can’t bring guns into the NRA offices/meetings? And how exactly do they justify that?

      • Mehmeisterjr

        They don’t believe the con. They run the con.

  • laineypc

    If it was truly a self-defense situation, then the number of homicides should not have changed much, just who got killed, the criminal or the stand your grounder.

  • Zippy W Pinhead

    Are we feeling polite yet?

    • Edith Prickly

      Not me.

      • GHERKINS OF RESTIVENESS!

        Well, looks like someone hasn’t been threatened enough with a firearm yet today!
        *muttering to self* Rude-y rude-pants! *reaches for gunrack*

        (Jesus, just writing this satirically gives me the squicks. Imagine believing it…!)

    • VagendaofNastyWoman

      I really got tired of hearing that quote from my ex. One day I responded “no, an armed society is one where people shoot each other a lot, and what kind of person wants respect out of the barrel of a gun anyway?
      Did not help the marriage, I’m not sorry to say.

  • OrG

    Republicans make me fear for my life.So………

    • anonymous

      The law states it has to be a reasonable fear and a jury must agree, So…

      • OrG

        My fear is reasonable………

  • theCryptofishist

    Okay, but it’s Florida. Can I use an alligator instead?

  • Scrofula

    “completely ignores the question” of whether the dead guy deserved it; maybe because the shooters are fucking immune from prosecution, so, they a priori did. Just remember to shoot to kill.

    • Beanz&Berryz

      Or to keep shooting until you do

  • Edith Prickly

    Really? Giving bigoted morons like George Zimmerman carte blanche to play Rambo with unsuspecting teenagers increased gun homicides? I is SHOCKED, shocked I tells ya!

  • Serai 1

    Jesus fuck, you can’t use the question of justifiability of a killing when you’ve changed the law to make it easier to justify doing it.

    • fsilber

      Depends on whether the easier restrictions are still reasonable.

      • Serai 1

        No, it doesn’t. Doesn’t matter how you’ve changed the rules, the argument is invalid because the rules have been changed.

  • fsilber

    A _small_ part of the increase in homicides was probably due to people being more confident in their right to defend themselves, that is indeed a good thing.

    But I suspect that most of the increase was not due to changes in the law itself, but in the media’s misrepresentation of the law — e.g. telling people they merely needed to _feel_ threatened without admitting that it had to be a _reasonable_ fear.

    • GHERKINS OF RESTIVENESS!

      “More confident in their right” …to shoot someone without consequences.
      Or in other words, “Drunk with gun-enabled power.”

      Such a good thing, this increase in homicide! Let’s make even more dead people! Indeed! What? Is that ghoulish?

      It’s definitely the media’s fault, not the “responsible” gun-owner who allows their fears to be diddled into a homicidal frenzy. It’s never their fault for immediately grabbing their lil power-sticks in response to threats both real and imagined.

      You suspect it isn’t due the law itself, even when the data says otherwise? What’s this suspicion based on? Your in-depth analysis of the media reports in those states when reporting on the law? Interviews to illuminate people’s perceptions of the law in those states? I’m sure it’s something more than just feelings you have, because you sound so confident about it.

      I actually suspect that most of the increase is the convenient disappearance of the first half of Almighty Amendment™. Weird that the founders didn’t bother to try to put any restrictions on weapons, like implying that it was part of service to The State, as part of a militia with regulations. Only “shall not be infringed” matters.

      • VagendaofNastyWoman

        It’s Murica! Shooting someone in the back for making off with your DVD player is your God given right!

        • fsilber

          People who really care about burglars should put up signs promising not to shoot them. By selecting only victims with the signs, burglars can avoid being shot. (If you put up the sign but shoot him anyway, then you should be prosecuted for enticing him.)

          If very few people care about burglars’ lives to put up the signs, then why should such a small minority be allowed to impose their love of burglars on the rest of us?

          • VagendaofNastyWoman

            While I’m not an ammosexual, I’ve owned guns, I know how to shoot, and my s/o is an antique firearms collector and ex competitive shooter.
            If someone gets into my home and refuses to leave after they realize I’m there then all bets are off. I will defend me and mine, as any other reasonable person would do.
            If I see someone running away with one of my possessions, I’m not going to shoot someone in the back If they are not a threat to me.. There’s a distinction there, and even Stand your ground laws will not help you in that situation.
            I make every reasonable effort to secure my home and property. I don’t love thieves, and I don’t think anyone else does.
            You’re not even trolling well.

          • GHERKINS OF RESTIVENESS!

            I think there’s this thing called The Law, and we invented it to deal with burglars, thieves, all manner of civilization’s issues, including illegal activities. Even homicides! Have you heard of it?

            You see, it turns out that if you leave it up to individuals to decide when it’s okay to homicide each other “for the right reasons” it actually turns out to make for all kinds of chaos and bad things. Like people murdering each other for nothing more than loud music or wearing suspicious hoodies. It’s pretty hard to distinguish vigilantes from any other homicide fan/murderer, when there’s no repercussions for taking someone else’s life.

            We even pay taxes to support this “system” of “laws,” and leave it up to professionals (that we also pay with taxes) to hunt down the law breakers and serve justice upon them. Through a drawn out dispassionate and deliberative process called a trial! And there’s aren’t even a lot of crimes that actually carry the penalty of being sentenced to death for their commission. I know, that part must suck for a homicide fan.

            This “judicial system,” if you will, goes so far that we are even electing people to public offices in order to make good laws to achieve the result of LESS chaos and homicide. Neat idea, huh?

            But then again, that whole system was invented before ALEC and the NRA infiltrated everything, and before morons diligently voted exactly the way their AM Radios told them to.

          • CatCafe de la Resistance

            You are speaking truth and sense, something the Lizard Cortex Rubes can’t understand.

          • fsilber

            The law concerns the criminal’s insult to the state. Our right not to be robbed or raped is independent of what the law chooses to do to those who violate the government’s will. And the law explicitly recognizes our right to kill in self-defense — limited to certain types of circumstances. Those limits explain why the guy who killed over loud music is in prison, and why you might be permitted to follow (at a distance) a suspicious guy in a hoodie so police can check him out, but not shoot him unless he savagely attacks you.

      • fsilber

        “You suspect it isn’t due the law itself, even when the data says otherwise?”

        The ;media’s false claims as to what the law allowed began around the same time that the law was passed, so there’s no way a time study can distinguish between the law and the media’s false description of it as to which was the cause.

        • GHERKINS OF RESTIVENESS!

          Oh, okay. I wonder what “false descriptions” of the law, done by that dastardly media do you might mean? I’m pretty sure nobody ran any “this is a great law” articles.

          Well, maybe the NRA did, but they’re only taken seriously by soft-brained toy collectors who fall for things like “Obama will take your guns, so buy more” and “guns make you safe,” (just ignore all the children and vets shooting themselves.)

          Oh! You probably meant articles critical of this law! Like those saying “this will probably lead to more homicides,” which weirdly enough looks like it did.

          But for a homicide fan like yourself, apparently that’s a plus…?

          • fsilber

            See HazooToo above. The false description by the media was that it allowed people to shoot anytime they “felt threatened” — when in fact it requires a _reasonable_ fear of death or grave bodily harm — with the prosecutor, judge and jury having the last word as to whether that fear was reasonable.

            The media was “exaggerating to make a point” (i.e. lying). But it is from the media that most people get their information.

        • CatCafe de la Resistance

          Seriously? You’re just going to ignore the way the law was fully understood, for decades, to be severely limited, until the Supreme Court, thanks to Scalia, made a decision that even RICHARD NIXON’s former Chief Justice said was “the biggest fraud, I repeat fraud, ever perpetrated on the American people”? The notion that it somehow applied to personal ownership? Which has only been in place since the 1980s, and has been utterly, laughably, insanely disastrous, causing literally millions of deaths since then?

          So you’re just fine with 33,000 Americans dying every year, toddlers killing their moms in Walmart, fearful elderly white men killing black teenagers because they don’t like their music or just the way they’re laughing, fearful rubes shooting their own kids because “it sounded like an intruder,” kids killing their “machine gun instructors” by accident, every insane wingnut or crazed sociopath being able to lay his hands (and it’s always “his” hands) on automatic weapons at a moments’ notice, every momentarily depressed teenager being able to easily find dad’s gun and make a tragic, irreversible choice?

          You are aware that we’re the absolute laughingstock of the world for this, even BEFORE the whole Trump thing? But you go ahead and feel good about it and try to pretend that absolute facts are “false claims.”

          • fsilber

            You’re going off on all sorts of tangents. The article was about the SYG law, not the 2nd Amendment. And your argument is analogous to blaming anyone opposed to outlawing Islam for every act of Jihadi terrorism in the west.

          • anonymous

            “So you’re just fine with 33,000 Americans dying every year”

            You are aware that 20,000 of those deaths are suicides and that only 6% of our population, young black men, commit over half the 11,000 gun homicides in the nation right? And no I am not just fine with it.

            “You are aware that we’re the absolute laughingstock of the world for this,”

            Which is surely why we have 46 million immigrants living in the country right now who were born somewhere else, everybody just wants to be in on the joke I guess and can’t get here fast enough..

          • CatCafe de la Resistance

            OH, lord, the trifecta. (1) Suicides are still gun deaths. You can’t actually separate them out and say they don’t count. (2) Your statistic about young black men is literally false. (3) If you don’t think the rest of the world isn’t laughing at us because of our insane refusal to deal with our sad gun addiction, you’re not listening.

      • anonymous

        ” implying that it was part of service to The State, as part of a militia with regulations”

        According to U.S federal law,

        10 U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes specifically..
        (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32,
        under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of
        intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
        citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

        (b) The classes of the militia are—

        (1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

        (2)the unorganized militia,
        which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the
        National Guard or the Naval Militia.

        Just sayin, we do have a militia and always have, and it is basically every military age man and women in the national guard. Women were added in 1958, and if women are ever required to sign up for selective service as men must do then all able bodied women will be part of the militia as well. Not that being a member of such militia imposes any limit on the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms, it doesn’t.

    • HazooToo

      I don’t think we can blame the media for this one. Gun owners tend to pay close attention to new laws involving guns. They often get their info from the NRA and other gun owners online. They know what the law is about, and how it’s supposed to be used. They know whether they’re “justified” or not when they kill someone. As for people being more confident in self defense, since neither study examined how many of the shootings were “justified”, and because the alleged criminals are not alive to explain whether they were attacking the shooter, or simply trying to steal their TV, I am not comfortable saying that ANY of the increase in homicides is “good”, for any reason. If you were breaking into a house and found a gun pointed at your face, would you decide to attack? Would you be more or less likely to attack if you were in a SYG state? How many of these people were shot while retreating from an armed homeowner? How many people were shot more than once? Possibly while already lying on the floor, bleeding, from the first shot? Why is the burden suddenly on the person who got shot to prove they weren’t threatening someone’s life? How exactly do you prove that, if this happens in the privacy of someone’s home, with no witnesses? If the concept of justifiable homicide in self defense is already on the books, why does the SYG law need to exist? Taking someone else’s life should always be something you only resort to when they’re trying to take yours. There is no death penalty for mugging or burglary. And even if there were, average citizens are NOT law enforcement or judges.

      • fsilber

        “I don’t think we can blame the media for this one. Gun owners tend to pay close attention to new laws involving guns.”

        Those are legal gun owners. It is likely that most of the increase in homicide was among the criminal element. The study didn’t say — which is a reason why the study is worthless.

        “As for people being more confident in self defense, since neither study examined how many of the shootings were `justified’.”

        Yet another reason why the study is worthless.

        “If the concept of justifiable homicide in self defense is already on the books, why does the SYG law need to exist?”

        Part of the value of the law had nothing to do with standing your ground vs retreating, but had to do with protection from lawsuits. The main need for SYG, as I see it, is to ensure that no judge interprets “submitting to a robbers’ demands” as part of required retreating.

        “Taking someone else’s life should always be something you only resort to when they’re trying to take yours.”

        Also for when they’re threatening to take your life unless you obey them.

        “There is no death penalty for mugging or burglary.”

        Nor does England have a death penalty for assassinating the Queen or for terrorism; nevertheless her guards stand ready to shoot intruders. Killing in self-defense is not limited to death penalty crimes. The principle is that it’s better for robbers to have to choose between likely death and giving up robbery than for victims to have to choose between likely death and submission to robbery.

        • HazooToo

          Sorry, I thought for a minute that this was going to be a serious discussion, not just you looking for ways to defend a law that gives random citizens permission to shoot strangers “if they feel threatened”. Seriously?

          • CatCafe de la Resistance

            Not to mention, he’s defending an absurd “principle” that has been shown over and over and over and over NOT to be any sort of deterrent, but rather, leading to 33,000 needless American deaths every year.

          • fsilber

            That’s exactly the kind of misinformation that I’m referring to. It doesn’t permit shooting merely if you “feel” threatened. It’s only if you have a _reasonable_ fear of death or grave bodily harm. Under the law, the prosecutor, judge and jury have the last word as to whether your fear or proclaimed fear was reasonable — but the news articles didn’t say this.

            Therefore, _they’re_ the ones responsible if people are shooting for no good reason in the belief that all they need to do is say, “I felt threatened.”

          • HazooToo

            No. No. The only people responsible for shooting for no good reason are the people doing the shooting. They know what the law means, and if they don’t, then they’re too damn stupid to be trusted with a gun in the first place. And really, protecting yourself from “This person is trying to kill me” is legal already, this law is unnecessary and did you miss the part where crimes were going down before it was enacted in the first place? Then more people started dying after? That doesn’t make sense unless people are shooting when they do not HAVE to!

  • TakingAmes

    “It’s all about fear, and if you yell “I am in fear for my life!” you can probably get away with anything.” If you’re white. FIFY

    • Resistance Engineer Red Bird

      Imagine if there were no witnesses when Dylan Roof shot those people in the church and this law existed in South Carolina.

  • amberlynne
  • House0fTheBlueLights

    I don’t know what you’re complaining about. Isn’t this all part of making America great again?

    • GHERKINS OF RESTIVENESS!

      Make Homicides Great(er) Again!

      • Tetsu Kaba

        It’s an economic stimulus for coroners, pathologists and funeral homes

  • Paperless Tiger

    I’m beginning to think that the ‘end of history’ was really ‘peak civilization’.

    • Rex Thorne

      I thought we were at the beginning of a golden-age of reason, tolerance, and prosperity, but then the radical-right and the Trumpkins came along, and now it seems like we’re at the end of a golden-age, and about to slide down into a dark age of superstition, bigotry and hate.

  • Resistance Engineer Red Bird

    So they basically want to make a law that has been applied to favor white people 70% of the time and almost always when the victim was black even more racist.

    • VagendaofNastyWoman

      I don’t understand this constant fear of crime. Are these guys escapees from organized crime? Did they double cross a cartel? Has some foreign government put a price on their heads? Why do they need gunz, gunz, and more gunz?

      • CatCafe de la Resistance

        Penis size. Makes them feel bigger.

        • anonymous

          I guess that would explain the big rise in women buying guns and shooting home intruders.. It just makes them feel like that have a big ole penis..

          • There is no rise in women shooting home intruders!
            There IS however a big rise in women’s children shooting them, and themselves, so there is that!

          • fsilber

            And also that most of the best selling guns these days are the reasonably powerful _little_ guns.

      • fsilber

        “I don’t understand this constant fear of crime.”

        I just don’t think we should have to tolerate being robbed, or that women should have to tolerate being abducted by rapists. That the state might eventually catch them and punish them after they’ve done it often enough is no consolation.

        • VagendaofNastyWoman

          Humans are lousy at risk assessment. We fear the dramatic, when we should really fear the mundane. If you have a gun in your home, you or someone in your home are more likely to die by gun violence, whether by suicide, accident, or domestic violence then you are likely to use that gun to defend yourself from a crime.
          That doesn’t mean that you or I are suicidal or violent. It’s simple cold, hard statistics. That’s why, when my kids were little, I sold the guns and got an alarm system. I just didn’t want to take the chance they would get ahold of them, gun safe or not.
          If I were a jeweler, a pharmacist, a prosecutor, or an off duty cop, I might have reconsidered the odds and gotten a concealed carry permit. BTW I also live in a state with strict gun laws, and I’m fine with that.
          Now that the kids are grown and gone, I’m thinking about getting back into recreational shooting. Sigh. Just lots of other priorities.

          • fsilber

            Your personal risk is not determined by national statistics but rather by your personal qualities and the qualities of the people in your household. As for kids — real kids, not the 16 year-old members of violent criminal street gangs — almost all of the horrible tragedies could have been prevented by the simple rule: “WEAR your gun if you think you might need it. Keep it locked up if you’re not wearing it, if there are children around.”

            Again, the most important reason to carry a gun is not the danger that some robber might kill you, but so that you don’t have to submit to his demands to avoid death. This is not so much to improve your safety as it is to defend your freedom and fundamental rights.

          • VagendaofNastyWoman

            Want to lower your personal risk? Want to know how to actually lower it, as opposed to theory? Don’t hang out with criminals, and don’t associate with people who do. . Don’t let your kids hang out with them, either. I don’t mean you personally. I am speaking in general terms.
            It is not legal to carry a weapon around in my state, loaded or unloaded, without a CCP. I’m fine with that. I can’t imagine living with that kind of fear.

        • C4TWOMAN

          So, since you’re concerned about women being the target of rapists and other violence, your totally support women who take the approach of building muscle strength to reduce that threat? You wouldn’t say , assume a woman who could beat you in a fight was a lesbian or something?

          • fsilber

            I assume that any woman who has had a reasonable amount of martial arts training would likely beat me in a fight. I have no problem with that.

          • C4TWOMAN

            That’s great.

            But I didn’t say martial arts training(which is also good) . I said physical strength. As in you can pick up more than your body weight(deadlift). See, to be that strong a woman can’t look like a frail waif. And once a woman stops looking like a frail waif, a high percentage of people on the political spectrum you appear to come from star calling her a “lesbian” or tranny”, or something else to imply being a physically strong as a female is freaky. But it is literally the single best way to avoid being targeted by a random attacker, and, unlike a gun, it can’t be taken from you if you’re untrained. It also takes much less time to accomplish: in six months to a year you can be deadlifting your body weight if you’re a healthy adult, whereas mastering martial arts takes years.

            See, I’ve done both. And I have found the problem with women being attacked has little to do with whether they have weapons or not, but whether the would be attacker thinks he can get away with it without being hurt. If you’re really concerned about women’s safety these are the things you can help with:

            -Stop rewarding little girls for JUST being cute and pretty. Complements are fine, but not treats or gifts. Instead reward them for getting good grades, or winning a ball game, or drawing real well, or whatever. Reward them for DOING things.

            -Support girls sports programs. Learning to work as a team builds confidence and group problem solving skills. These girls are more likely to intervene or help someone being attacked.

            -Call out people who dismis muscular women as “trannys” or “lesbos”. You can’t have it both ways, saying women are frail, then punishing those who fix that.

            -Support equal pay for equal work. Without economic power women can’t afford to go to the gym, or have those martial arts lessons. Or even buy a security system …..or a gun.

            For the record I think guns have their place, but using women’s safety as an excuse for badly thought out legislation is cynical and insulting.

      • anonymous

        Go to youtube and type “intruder shot” into the search and you may gain an understanding. Seriously, watch a few dozen of those vids.

        • VagendaofNastyWoman

          I was married to a police officer. I know about crime and self defense.
          I was at a cop party, and I saw a guy playfully wrestle his wife to the ground and hold a loaded 45 to her head. They weren’t even mad at each other! They were just playing around. That’s the kind of stuff that’s going to get someone killed.
          I simply looked at the statistics and made a decision. I have no doubt that people are able to defend themselves from home invaders, muggers, rapists etc. with firearms. Just as I know that people die in airplane crashes and I still choose to fly. What’s actually more likely to kill a person is that double McPorkburger, or that double vente frappawhetever, or their car or their genes, or just old age. When I became a single mom, the possibility that my kids would be harmed by a gun accident, or an impulse to harm themselves meant more to me than the fear of crime.
          To be fair, had I ever been a victim of a violent crime, or worked in a profession with dangerous people, ( other than some loe’s) I might see it differently.

          • MC Planck

            Jim Jeffries, the Aussie comedian (though he is American now), talks about when he was in London and some people broke into his apartment and tied him to a chair while he was naked.

            He points out that there was never a point where he could have gone and got his gun.

            Here in Melbourne we have a rash of young thugs breaking into people’s homes, accosting them, demanding their car keys, and then stealing their BMWs and stuff.

            Traumatic, yes. Terrifying and unacceptable, of course. And yet… no one has died over it.

            No one has even gone to the hospital.
            It’s a fucking car. It’s not worth turning your streets into a free fire zone over.

          • VagendaofNastyWoman

            True, but here’s where I have to depart ways a little. I know a couple who was victimized by a random home invasion robbery. The wife was raped and the husband was severely beaten. Their toddler son was in the house at the time.
            They never entered that home again. Their friends packed up their things for them, and they moved, they were that traumatized by the experience.
            If someone enters your home while you are there, you have no idea what their intention is. They might not even know. I don’t think anyone could be blamed for using whatever weapon they could get ahold of.
            That being said, those kind of events, where criminals victimize a random home, are actually pretty rare. Usually there’s an intention to harm one person, or the criminal knows about money or drugs in the house.

          • MC Planck

            Of course that’s horrible. But would a gun have mattered? Did they ever have a chance to actually get to one?

            The problem with the gun control argument is that people think of a gun as a solution. Jeffrie’s point is that it isn’t, not nearly as often as people think. You don’t buy one and check it off the list, like locking your door and turning on the hall light when leaving for vacation. “There, that’s safety settled.” Your chances of actually getting to use your gun in self-defense are pretty low.

            Don’t get me wrong – I owned guns for several decades, starting at the age of 14. I only sold them off to move to Australia. If I lived in the USA I might still own a handgun or two. (On top of the two blackbelts I have.)

            But I have found that in Australia, I don’t feel the need for one. And as you pointed out, the risk to their toddler of having a gun in the house is much higher than the risk of that kind of event.

            To me the obvious answer is a society with just less guns. Also, better social services. But both of those will never happen in American society, for the same reason: racism.

            White male privilege is maintained by gun ownership. If a certain amount of violence is required to justify that ownership, they will see that it is supplied.

    • fsilber

      “hey basically want to make a law that has been applied to favor white people 70% of the time and almost always when the victim was black even more racist.”

      You’re complaining that white people are not attacking others, particularly black people, frequently enough to keep the statistics even?

      • Not even. Can you read?
        He is clearly saying that white people are attacking only black people and hiding behind this bullshit murderer law in order to do so.
        Know what they did in the old west to people who shot and killed an unarmed man? Let’s adopt THAT law again!

        • fsilber

          Not at all. The results are perfectly consistent with a situation of blacks sometimes trying to rob white people and getting righteously shot, with the reverse rarely happening.

          • Rex Thorne

            Righteously shot? You seem like you might be a violence-craving right-wing radical.

  • GHERKINS OF RESTIVENESS!

    From what I understand, this law was originally because of a poor Florida-man James Workman, who spent all those months (three!) in “legal jeopardy” (but not in actual jail!) before being cleared of wrongdoing for shooting a FEMA worker that entered his trailer at night!

    It’s almost like the system worked in that case.

    And is broken all to fuck now that they “solved” his problem with this law.

  • Celtic_Gnome

    And this, boys and girls, is exactly why we need more laws making it illegal to collect and distribute data on gun violence in the United States.

  • Mehmeisterjr

    Meanwhile, back in Florida, state Sen. Rob Bradley introduced a bill in December that would make it even easier to win a “stand your ground” case, shifting the burden of proof from the shooter to the person who got shot. So if you claim you were standing your ground, whoever you shot would have to prove you weren’t defending yourself, which could get a trifle difficult if the target ends up dead. That seems like a great incentive to make sure you finish ’em off.

    It’s a case of he says, dead men tell no tales.

    • fsilber

      Dead men do tell tales. Police can investigate their background. They can see whether there was a weapon on the scene with the dead man’s fingerprints that he was forbidden to possess due to prior convictions. The body can be examined.

      • Examining the body reveals they are dead.
        Their background has nothing what-so-ever to do with whether or not they deserved to be kiled.
        So there is that!

        • fsilber

          In the Zimmerman case, examination of Martin’s body showed that, aside from the fatal bullet wound, the only marks on his body were on his knuckles that he used to beat Zimmerman.

          If a person who’s never been in trouble shoots a stranger claiming they guy showed a weapon and said, “Your money or your life!” — the fact that the dead man unable to speak was already convicted of crimes like that give credibility to the shooter’s claim.

          • doktorzoom

            And Crom knows George Zimmerman has since proven himself to be a person of sterling moral character and zenlike calm temperament, who would never go looking for a fight.

            Your fifteen minutes at Wonkette are finished. Bye!

            — Dok Zoom, Yr Friendly Neighborhood Comments Moderator

          • MC Planck

            Oh thank Dog for that.

          • Robert Minor

            He never claimed to be a saint. All he ever claimed was that he was getting the crap kicked out of him and he was afraid the kid was going to kill him. A kid that was no saint himself and did something that ended up biting him in the ass.

      • MC Planck

        “Police can investigate…”

        April 1st is months away.

  • Theresa Azores

    Meh. Since it’s clear that there is no respect for life out there in Florida, then fine. Let them all have fun blowing each other’s brains out. They can do our dirty work for us and eliminate themselves from the gene pool. They can save taxpayer money–which will be a good thing, since we’ll have to pay for that stupid border wall between us and Mexico in the end. Like we didn’t see that one coming….

    It seems that these days, in general, people like taking justice in their own hands. They don’t like rules. They just want to do whatever the hell they want. And I have to ask: Is it worth it to be able to do whatever you want and be your own judge, jury and executioner? Is it really worth it?

    • doktorzoom

      Huh. Since you’re not openly wishing for violence toward any specific person, I’m going to leave this up but also remind you to review the commenting rules. You’re skating pretty close to “kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out,” here, but I’ll leave it. In general, though, we have a low tolerance for wishing death on anyone.

      Plus, you’re sounding a bit like a nihilist. I mean, say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos. :)

      — Dok Zoom, Yr Friendly Neighborhood Comments Moderator

    • Gregory Brown

      Ever wonder how many outright murders are being cloaked in “stand your ground,” knucklehead?

  • JCfromNC

    So if you claim you were standing your ground, whoever you shot would have to prove you weren’t defending yourself, which could get a trifle difficult if the target ends up dead. That seems like a great incentive to make sure you finish ’em off.

    Don’t remember where I saw it, but I remember from years and years ago someone saying if you ever have to shoot, shoot to kill, because that way the only story of how things happened is your version. Sounds like Florida won’t be happy until people start throwing lead at each other as a way of settling even the smallest dispute.

    • ahughes798

      I was told the same thing. You’re never supposed to point a weapon at anything unless you intend to shoot it, and if you shoot it, aim for center mass. Or the Bulls eye on your target.

  • Robert Minor

    That isn’t an effort to “brush off” the increase or so make an argument that those who were killed “need to be killed”. It’s a legitimate observation of a major hole in the ‘study’ that tried to directly link the passage of that law with that increase.

    Chicago and Baltimore as just 2 examples had record breaking murder rates as a result of gun violence with numbers skyrocketing to levels not seen since the late 80’s early 90’s and they certainly never passed stand your ground laws. Incidentally those 2 cities also saw a disproportionate increase in those shooting deaths in their African-American communities as well a disturbing omission since the article states that the studies authors supposedly compared it to other areas of the country and found that there had been no increase.

    “a comparison with states that didn’t have “stand your ground” laws showed no change in homicide rates in those states, suggesting that the laws make deadly shootings a lot likelier.”

    The article didn’t give us the entire statistical breakdown but was it just coincidence that the homicide rate among African-Americans went up almost exactly the same percentage as the overall homicide rate? One could just as easily draw that conclusion from what was written even though I suspect you’d be wrong.

    Also there’s no mention of a corollary rise in the number of claims of standing their ground that stood up to investigation or were found to be illegitimate. Surely if that law was to blame there would have been a similar rise if the number gun related assaults and deaths in which stand your ground defense would have been claimed.

    This is just another example of trying to attach correlation to causation based on selective data points; and it excludes any mention of the increase in similar crime patterns in urban areas across the country.

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-homicides-shootings-20161221-story.html

    There are tons of links to homicide rates and increased gun violence in other states and urban areas that trace the rise and history going back into the 70’s and earlier if you bother to spend just a very few minutes on Google. There’s little question that since the financial crisis of 2007-08 that the rates have gone up substantially in many (but not all) of our cities and therefore in many of our states.

    Unfortunately this site limits the number of those links I could provide but they’re out there for those who want to cross check the validity of this article and the study it’s based on and you won’t need a grant from the government using taxpayer money to do it. You also won’t need a universities name or that of a fine sounding organization to give its’ added weight to your work’s soundness.

Previous articlePutin Tells Trump Not To Listen To Mean Old CIA. Wonkagenda for January 6, 2017
Next articleSome Gentle Advice For Governor Chris Christie On How To Mafia-Style Kneecap That Bastard Trump