'Stand your ground' laws linked to 11% rise in U.S. firearm homicides, study says
Source: Washington Post
Fiercely debated and increasingly common in the United States, stand-your-ground laws remove the duty to retreat from an attacker when possible before responding with potentially deadly force. They became a flash point in national disputes over gun violence, self-defense and racial profiling, particularly after the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, a Black teenager, in 2012.
Stand-your-ground laws are associated with an 11 percent increase in monthly firearm homicide rates, according to the new study, with especially striking jumps in Southern states that embraced stand-your-ground early on. That amounts to 700 additional homicides each year, according to the findings published Monday in JAMA Network Open, a peer-reviewed medical journal.
Justifications for stand-your-ground often “center around these laws actually having some protective effect on public safety and deterring violence,” said David Humphreys, an associate professor at the University of Oxford and one of the paper’s authors, in an interview. “There doesn’t seem to be any evidence to show that and, you know, we only seem to see the opposite effect.”
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/02/21/stand-your-ground-research-homicides/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
melm00se
(5,161 posts)That suggests stand-your-ground is not the only factor at play, the researchers acknowledge.
So, in essence, this article's title is clickbait and the body of the article is driving an agenda.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)Or at least serves a similar purpose (drawing eyes to the claim rather than to advertising but still without really delivering the goods)
AndyS
(14,559 posts)Less than 1/3 of states with SYG had a steady state of homicides after SYG and more than 2/3 saw an increase, some as high as 30%. Elsewhere in the article a spokesman for JAMA cited other factors such as % of gun ownership and a prevalence of self defense claims being contributing factors that need further study.
So let's see, an overwhelming majority of data supports SYG as increasing homicide and a small minority of data supports no decrease (something SYG promoters claim as a benefit).
Not delivering goods eh? Yeah, SOMEBODY is short on delivery every time they try to claim that guns don't contribute to shootings.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)Your conclusion (in the second paragraph) is not supported by the study - though you drawing that conclusion was clearly their intent.
Yeah, SOMEBODY is short on delivery every time they try to claim that guns don't contribute to shootings.
It would be pretty stupid to claim that guns don't contribute to shootings (since they are a prerequisite) - but it's a strawman (and not even a good one) if you're pretending that someone here is making that claim.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)If 72% of the data supports the statement that "states with SYG laws saw a n 11% increase in homicides" and 28% of the data show no decrease what would constitute an overwhelming majority of data? Or even a convincing majority?
% based on number of states with SYG vs number of states with no change in homicide.
As for guns vs shootings, every time some study links guns or the softening of gun laws to increases in death and injury SOMEBODY claims it can't possibly be guns. Poverty, video games, etc but never guns.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)Can you tell the difference between what you support in #12 above and what you claimed in #10 above that?
If not, that's a bunch of effort just to have you ignore me again.
#10:
Less than 1/3 of states with SYG had a steady state of homicides after SYG and more than 2/3 saw an increase,
#12:
72% of the data supports the statement that "states with SYG laws saw a n 11% increase in homicides" and 28% of the data show no decrease
Those two statements are identical except the two categories are reversed in order.
28% is less than a third. 72% is more than 2/3. Steady state and no decrease mean the same.
"They try to claim that guns don't contribute to shootings" is exactly the same as "it can't possibly be guns. Poverty, video games, etc but never guns."
How are you confused? I can't see the difference in the two statements.
So now that the red herring has been caught please tell me what would constitute convincing evidence?
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)#10 - "supports SYG as increasing homicide"
#12 - "supports the statement that "states with SYG laws saw a n 11% increase in homicides"
Can you tell the difference between those two claims or can't you?
AndyS
(14,559 posts)States with SYG laws see an 11% increase in homicides ergo [data] supports SYG laws increasing homicides.
The 11% is an average of all states with SYG laws including those that showed no increase or decrease.
It is the same statement. If you cannot see that then, yes, this is a colossal waste to time like the last exchange we had.
But congratulations, you have succeeded in dragging the sub thread off topic without answering the question of what constitutes convincing data which was your only intent.
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)Do consider reading up on the causational fallacy if you have some free time (the two are not at all the same statement)... but it's clearly not worth anyone else's time.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 22, 2022, 08:58 PM - Edit history (1)
it would have saved us both a few posts!
The best explanation of the causation/correlation dodge goes like this:
Double the number of cars on a freeway and traffic accidents will increase; that's correlation.
However no-one can look at any individual accident and prove conclusively that this one accident was directly caused by the increased traffic; that would be causation. Repeat that for every accident and suddenly, voila!, no relationship between traffic and accidents.
Interesting mental gymnastics but a dodge nonetheless.
In the case of SYG it isn't possible to prove that any one homicide was a direct result of SYG as it could have been a legitimate self defense however when it happens in 74% of states within two years of passing a SYG it makes a pretty hard iron clad case of correlation.
In short the difference is without distinction.
To be honest you're not very good at this. I've got 40 years of experience "debating" this shit. I have the advantage of knowing this isn't a debate, it's a justification of worshiping firearms because the gun lobby has 'lobbotymized' gunners into believing the crazy stuff they've been told.
eta: Sorry to take so long to respond to a no-brainer but I was across town at a doctor's appointment from 2pm to 5:30.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 22, 2022, 12:18 PM - Edit history (1)
is much diminished by the fact that with or without the law gunners here have behaved the same before and after the law. If people are already shooting first giving permission after the fact doesn't change much.
Neat deflection from the overall findings tho . . .
StClone
(11,869 posts)Certain further analysis would likely bear that out.
exboyfil
(18,359 posts)It has taken eight years to bring Curtis Reeves to trial for the Florida theater shooting. A big part of that time was jumping through the stand your ground hoops.
Dustlawyer
(10,539 posts)*Sarcasm*
Turbineguy
(40,047 posts)individuals to kill more people. Especially if these people have darker skin.
Republicans like to evade responsibility.
Aristus
(72,152 posts)'Stand Your Ground' was intended to provide cover for murderers who want to kill with impunity while getting off on a self-defense plea.
Simple as that.
2live is 2fly
(336 posts)What I've observed. You could beat the crap out of someone, call the cops, say they attacked you 1st, usually you're the one they're gonna believe (got a scratch/bruise better still). George Zimmerman (GZ) APPROACHED Trayvon Martin (TM), so isn't TM, the one who had the legit claim to, "Stand Their Ground" How the hell did that apply to GZ? BUT HE(GZ) CALLED 1st.
gopiscrap
(24,723 posts)
IronLionZion
(51,231 posts)people use the stand your ground excuse to take out their enemies and then claim self defense.