"Stand Your Ground" homicides/killings.

[tbburg]

I've been following the whole gun rights/CC/Castle doctrine/stand your ground debate for so long I don't remember when it started. Always thought it was a great idea. 'Got a Florida "out of state" CCW when they became available, because I used to dive with friends down there a couple times a year, and figured it would save hassles with the police.

Watched as one state after another made CC legal, then started expanding not just gun rights, but victim rights, homeowner rights,.. basically everyone but criminal rights. Followed the statistical evidence that the laws work in deterring crime and preventing criminals from further victimizing their prey by suing them.

I found this interesting:
A few days ago, a cousin listed a couple studies about the effects of expanded castle doctrine/stand your ground laws on the murder rate.
(both links lead to articles summarizing the studies, one has download link, the other has to be paid for)
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18187.pdf?new_window=1
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/06/11/study-says-stand-your-ground-laws-increase-homicides/
(She's a lib. Her and her friends were decrying the rise in killings.)
I'll throw in the quote from Heinlein at this point: "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Personally, I figure the "blip" in killings due to justifiable homicide isn't because people are finding an excuse to murder each other, but more a societal adjustment. Impolite/boorish/threatening behavior that would before have elicited a fear response is now being met with violence. I figure, no big deal, certain people are learning the hard way to be polite to strangers again.

I make nothing of the "100% rise in justifiable homicide" statistics. If there was no "justifiable homicide" rule on the books, the only way a homicide would be "justified" was if the situation was so gross that the prosecutor knew a jury wouldn't convict under any circumstances. Change the rule to allow justification, and you'll see a rise in occurrence - no big deal.

What I did find interesting was the NDER summary statistics about race.
Rather then white people using stand your ground laws as an excuse to kill minorities, as a lot of bleeding-heart worrywarts have stated, it seems that it might be the other way around, or maybe it's more white people killing each other. I don't have access to the full study(debating weather or not to buy it now) The summary only talks about the race of the "victim". I don't know if the study tracks the race of the perpetrator.(Yeah, I know, in a SYG case, it's the perp who is actually the victim, and vice-a-verse)

I'm guessing two possible real causes of these statistics:

One: because "whites" are such a large percentage of the population, and murder/killing is such an uncommon occurrence, the higher murder rate in the white population shows up only because of the large preponderance of white people. (60-70% of the population has 4-7 more murders per month, a subdivided 10% may have less the 1, making it statistically insignificant) So in effect, the "blip" is there for everyone, but it's such a small blip that it doesn't show up in the smaller segregated population samples.
Kind of like airliner crashes. They happen so infrequently that no meaningful statistical information can be gleaned from them by sub-type. There are hugely more 373s then there ever were Concords, and quite a few of them have gone down over the years, but one Concord crash made it plunge(statistically)from the safest airliner ever built, to the worst.

Two: Not sure how to put this one,.. White people are a**holes. In the US population, Caucasians are a pretty big majority. Because of this, we can get away with a lot of bad behavior. What I mean by this is that a white person could (statistically) get away with behavior that a minority wouldn't try. Not murder/rape/etc, just generally impolite/threatening behavior that before the stand your ground laws would only have resulted in at most a police report. Now they're(we're,.. I'm white)getting wacked for it.

Any way around, I still figure it's just a long overdue, much needed "attitude adjustment" in the population as a whole, and I'm not too worried about it.

Thoughts?

 

[blubullett]

Statistics can be used to show anything. While they state justifiable homicide is up, of course it is up, it is now easier to kill a scumbag in your house and not go to jail for it. Also, it doesn't state in those articles while justifiable homicide is up, homicide in general is down from 10 years ago.

While whites are higher on the justifiable homicide lists, they aren't topping the homicide list. So, are whites a-holes because they have a reason to kill someone? Or are browns a-holes because they kill people without a legally justifiable reason?

I believe if someone is in your house and you believe you are in danger you should be able to kill them. If someone tries to rob you on the street with a deadly weapon, you should be able to kill them. If you are jumped by five guys and they are beating you to death you should be able to kill them. If you start a confrontation with someone and it escallates untill you kill them, you should get the electrict chair.

Criminals aren't getting away with murder due to these laws, criminals are getting removed from the street permanitly.

 

[Beezil]

castle doctrine is still the best way to go.

states that have it have less violent crime. period.

 

[DrMoab]

castle doctrine is still the best way to go.

states that have it have less violent crime. period.

What would you know? you gun hating Nazi?

 

[xcm]

The way i see it, everytime some nutbag goes and shoots his school teacher neighbor for playing his music too loud, it convinces more people to put more stringent regulations on guns.

Im a gun owner, i enjoy shooting them. But the "pro-gun argument" is flawed. No civilian should own a .50cal tactical rifle, nor full auto assault weapons. Some makes should be blacklisted, your saturday night specials, uzi's, so to speak. We as a nation should be able to pick and choose, say 'no... these uzi's, tec-9's or AK's, or whatever gun, shouldnt be legal' Dont bullshit me about your rights being trampled... your rights are often limited for the sake of the group. You cant scream fire in a theatre, every rule has exceptions.



If this argument has two sides, as most political debates often do, one side says all guns are ok, 30round magazines and bayonette lugs, grenade launchers, all cool.... i cant side with you guys, i dont want to live in that country...

But the otherside often completely lib's out, and says hunters should rent their guns under heavy regulation, thats bullshit too... cant side with that either...

As usual, the complicated debates become A vs B, when the best solution lies in between (Not the center).

 

[DrMoab]

You are a perfect example of why we should gate off california with a 100 ft tall fence and put the national guard on patrol there.

 

[FlexdXJ]

The way i see it, everytime some nutbag goes and shoots his school teacher neighbor for playing his music too loud, it convinces more people to put more stringent regulations on guns.

Im a gun owner, i enjoy shooting them. But the "pro-gun argument" is flawed. No civilian should own a .50cal tactical rifle, nor full auto assault weapons. Some makes should be blacklisted, your saturday night specials, uzi's, so to speak. We as a nation should be able to pick and choose, say 'no... these uzi's, tec-9's or AK's, or whatever gun, shouldnt be legal' Dont bullshit me about your rights being trampled... your rights are often limited for the sake of the group. You cant scream fire in a theatre, every rule has exceptions.



If this argument has two sides, as most political debates often do, one side says all guns are ok, 30round magazines and bayonette lugs, grenade launchers, all cool.... i cant side with you guys, i dont want to live in that country...

But the otherside often completely lib's out, and says hunters should rent their guns under heavy regulation, thats bullshit too... cant side with that either...

As usual, the complicated debates become A vs B, when the best solution lies in between (Not the center).

A gun is a gun, they can all kill something. As an example, I have high cap mags for my .22 because reloading sucks. It doesn't matter if its a .17 HMR or a .50BMG If is shoots one round or 50, it is our right(given to us by the constitution) as a citizen to own whatever the hell gun we want. Do we need assualt rifles on a regular basis, no. but what happens during an act of war(we get invaded, highly unlikely but using it as an example). If someone comes at my house with an AK, what's my 9mm gonna do?

 

[87manche]

The way i see it, everytime some nutbag goes and shoots his school teacher neighbor for playing his music too loud, it convinces more people to put more stringent regulations on guns.

Im a gun owner, i enjoy shooting them. But the "pro-gun argument" is flawed. No civilian should own a .50cal tactical rifle, nor full auto assault weapons. Some makes should be blacklisted, your saturday night specials, uzi's, so to speak. We as a nation should be able to pick and choose, say 'no... these uzi's, tec-9's or AK's, or whatever gun, shouldnt be legal' Dont bullshit me about your rights being trampled... your rights are often limited for the sake of the group. You cant scream fire in a theatre, every rule has exceptions.



If this argument has two sides, as most political debates often do, one side says all guns are ok, 30round magazines and bayonette lugs, grenade launchers, all cool.... i cant side with you guys, i dont want to live in that country...

But the otherside often completely lib's out, and says hunters should rent their guns under heavy regulation, thats bullshit too... cant side with that either...

As usual, the complicated debates become A vs B, when the best solution lies in between (Not the center).

you're an idiot.

Guns are pieces of steel and plastic. People that use guns for violent crime are the issue.

Of course, if you get rid of guns those same people will either

Obtain them illegally (They're already criminals you know)
or just bash people in the head with a brick.

People that want to do violence will do violence. We shouldn't be hamstrung in defending ourselves just because you happen to think there's no reason for me to have a 30 rd mag for my AK.

the fact that you think me owning a 30 rd mag automatically makes me predisposed to commit a violent act is sad. and with enough practice it really doesn't matter if it holds 10 or holds 30. I can always carry 10 more mags and swap them pretty quick. That's kind of the point of a detachable magazine.

What you call a "saturday night special" I call an inexpensive gun for self defense. Or would you still tote the party line that effectively restricts access to arms for the poor? Take a look at all the fees and taxes and everything else that's used to control firearms. You don't think that system was setup for a reason? I twas setup to keep poor minorities from arming themselves.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/movieplay-ngn-swf.htm

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

Would you like more scholarly studies that cite actual changes to the gun control laws that were racist?

It is one of the great ironies that, in much the same way that the North Carolina Supreme Court recognized a right to bear arms in 1843 -- then a year later declared that free blacks were not included -- the Georgia Supreme Court did likewise before the 1840s were out. The Georgia Supreme Court found in Nunn v. State (1846) that a statute prohibiting the sale of concealable handguns, sword-canes, and daggers violated the Second Amendment:
]

take a good long hard look at the laws, when they were passed and who backed them and tell me gun control wasn't setup to make sure the privileged got to keep their guns, and the poorest people couldn't afford to.

and just to finish up on this.

What's been going on in Chicago lately? Oh yeah, rampant murders. Could it be because the poor black population is forbidden to arm themselves. Chicago is the model for the anti-gun movement. You haven't been able to legally own a handgun in the city limits for 40 years, and yet they have one of the highest murder rates in the Union. Yeah, that gun control works out pretty well, well enough to make sure that the innocents can't protect themselves from the criminals.

 

[supertubesocks]

you're an idiot.

Guns are pieces of steel and plastic. People that use guns for violent crime are the issue.

Of course, if you get rid of guns those same people will either

Obtain them illegally (They're already criminals you know)
or just bash people in the head with a brick.

People that want to do violence will do violence. We shouldn't be hamstrung in defending ourselves just because you happen to think there's no reason for me to have a 30 rd mag for my AK.

the fact that you think me owning a 30 rd mag automatically makes me predisposed to commit a violent act is sad. and with enough practice it really doesn't matter if it holds 10 or holds 30. I can always carry 10 more mags and swap them pretty quick. That's kind of the point of a detachable magazine.

What you call a "saturday night special" I call an inexpensive gun for self defense. Or would you still tote the party line that effectively restricts access to arms for the poor? Take a look at all the fees and taxes and everything else that's used to control firearms. You don't think that system was setup for a reason? I twas setup to keep poor minorities from arming themselves.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/movieplay-ngn-swf.htm

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

Would you like more scholarly studies that cite actual changes to the gun control laws that were racist?




take a good long hard look at the laws, when they were passed and who backed them and tell me gun control wasn't setup to make sure the privileged got to keep their guns, and the poorest people couldn't afford to.

and just to finish up on this.

What's been going on in Chicago lately? Oh yeah, rampant murders. Could it be because the poor black population is forbidden to arm themselves. Chicago is the model for the anti-gun movement. You haven't been able to legally own a handgun in the city limits for 40 years, and yet they have one of the highest murder rates in the Union. Yeah, that gun control works out pretty well, well enough to make sure that the innocents can't protect themselves from the criminals.

In California you cant have detachable mags, unless they require a tool to remove.

 

[87manche]

In California you cant have detachable mags, unless they require a tool to remove.

and if someone was going to commit violent crime you think the bulletbutton is going to remain on their AR?

get real. That thing is coming off, and they're using "parts kits" to assemble 30 round mags.

Criminals will always be well armed, they don't care about your silly detachable mag ban.

and still, you can have detachable mags, you just can't have any other evil assault weapon features like a pistol grip or a bayo lug. Cause the inclusion of a pstol grip automatically makes any rifle an infant killing machine.

 

[Boatwrench]

. No civilian should own a .50cal tactical rifle, nor full auto assault weapons. Some makes should be blacklisted, your saturday night specials, uzi's, so to speak. We as a nation should be able to pick and choose, say 'no... these uzi's, tec-9's or AK's, or whatever gun, shouldnt be legal' Dont bullshit me about your rights being trampled... your rights are often limited for the sake of the group. You cant scream fire in a theatre, every rule has exceptions.

I disagree. The reason that civilians should own ".50cal tactical rifle"; "full auto assualt weapons"; "Uzi's, tec-9's or AK's" is to keep our government from becoming more of a police state than it already is.

As the OP and other posters alluded to it isn't the weapon it is the attitude of the person behind the hammer. If you're a douche and want to flash your piece or pop a few caps, well there will be someone with a more level head that will just put you back a step or two. Attitude adjustment or politness increasing is long over due in this country. People that can't control their tempers or anger and get stupid with gun play need to forfeit their right to walk among the civilized.

Please don't fence off California, we need your tourist dollars.

 

[Beezil]

and if someone was going to commit violent crime you think the bulletbutton is going to remain on their AR?

get real. That thing is coming off, and they're using "parts kits" to assemble 30 round mags.

Criminals will always be well armed, they don't care about your silly detachable mag ban.

and still, you can have detachable mags, you just can't have any other evil assault weapon features like a pistol grip or a bayo lug. Cause the inclusion of a pstol grip automatically makes any rifle an infant killing machine.

You assertion on chicago........

Are all 100-percent correct

 

[Beezil]

What would you know? you gun hating Nazi?

My worm lost its wiggle!

If my post inspired just ONE viewer to renew their nra membership, i will have done good

 

[JohnX]

The way i see it, everytime some nutbag goes and shoots his school teacher neighbor for playing his music too loud, it convinces more people to put more stringent regulations on guns.

Im a gun owner, i enjoy shooting them. But the "pro-gun argument" is flawed. No civilian should own a .50cal tactical rifle, nor full auto assault weapons. Some makes should be blacklisted, your saturday night specials, uzi's, so to speak. We as a nation should be able to pick and choose, say 'no... these uzi's, tec-9's or AK's, or whatever gun, shouldnt be legal' Dont bullshit me about your rights being trampled... your rights are often limited for the sake of the group. You cant scream fire in a theatre, every rule has exceptions.



If this argument has two sides, as most political debates often do, one side says all guns are ok, 30round magazines and bayonette lugs, grenade launchers, all cool.... i cant side with you guys, i dont want to live in that country...

But the otherside often completely lib's out, and says hunters should rent their guns under heavy regulation, thats bullshit too... cant side with that either...

As usual, the complicated debates become A vs B, when the best solution lies in between (Not the center).

you're an idiot.

Yeppers.

You are a perfect example of why we should gate off california with a 100 ft tall fence and put the national guard on patrol there.

Can I leave first?

 

[87manche]

Yeppers.



Can I leave first?

nope, we can't risk having the stupid spread, if you get out, some of them may too.

sorry.

 

[JohnX]

Damnit...i'm gonna have to kill a few of them to make CA tolerable.

 

[Boatwrench]

Damnit...i'm gonna have to kill a few of them to make CA tolerable.

Actually it is the people moving into California from other states (and countries) that continue to screw it up.

 

[supertubesocks]

and if someone was going to commit violent crime you think the bulletbutton is going to remain on their AR?

get real. That thing is coming off, and they're using "parts kits" to assemble 30 round mags.

Criminals will always be well armed, they don't care about your silly detachable mag ban.

and still, you can have detachable mags, you just can't have any other evil assault weapon features like a pistol grip or a bayo lug. Cause the inclusion of a pstol grip automatically makes any rifle an infant killing machine.

It's not my ban. I think its stupid too.

I'm done with this forum.

 

[DrMoab]

It's not my ban. I think its stupid too.

I'm done with this forum.

Really? Over that?

You are easy to scare away.

 

[kastein]

It's not my ban. I think its stupid too.

I'm done with this forum.

huh. who are you again?