Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumGeorge Zimmerman's attorneys won't use "stand your ground" defense
(Also posted in LBN)
Mark O'Mara, who is defending George Zimmerman against a second-degree murder charge in the fatal February shooting, said the traditional self-defense approach is appropriate because the facts suggest his client couldn't retreat from a beating Martin was giving him.
Zimmerman's attorneys had said last week that they would use Florida's controverial "stand your ground" law, which allows people to use deadly force - rather than retreat - if they believe their lives are in danger.
"The facts don't seem to support a 'stand your ground' defense," O'Mara said.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57492488/george-zimmermans-attorneys-wont-use-stand-your-ground-defense/
After all of the hysteria about "stand your ground," it won't even be used.
""The facts don't seem to support a 'stand your ground' defense," as many on DU have noted. In the defense version, Zimmerman was headed to his car when he was sucker punched and knocked to the ground. If you are getting your head pounded into the ground, you clearly can't retreat; there can be no legal duty to retreat if retreat is impossible.
And of course if Zimmerman stalked and attacked an innocent person, he had no right to stand his ground.
It doesn't matter which version is true, SYG is not relevant to this case. It's a good thing the law wasn't changed based on the hype that surrounded it in the weeks following this shooting. Florida's SYG law may be flawed, but hysterical arguments made in the heat of passion are rarely logically sound.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ileus
(15,396 posts)Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Recall that the study about SYG found that SYG laws increased non-self-defense shootings. This indicates that, not surprisingly, SYG laws have an broader impact beyond just the cases where SYG laws are applicable: they encourage more questionable shootings and get more people killed.
And this partly is because they empower would-be gun heroes like Zimmerman to try and become actual gun heroes, based on the belief that SYG laws will protect them. And Zimmerman was almost right. Until the media got hold of this case, they weren't even going to charge him with anything thanks to SYG.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)SYG is clearly irrelevant to this case. As I recall, the detective wanted to charge him but got overruled. SYG may have been the excuse, but if so it was a fig leaf.
As for your study, I don't recall it. What I do recall, however, is that police shootings increased in Florida after SYG laws, though they are clearly unrelated to SYG. This lead me to suspect that there may be some other factor that caused police and self-defense shootings to rise that had nothing to do with SYG.
I also recall following a link from another poster to a opinion piece that purported to show that SYG increased homocides, without any apparent serious analysis of data.
SYG may be relevant to you personally, but it is clearly irrelevant to this case. If Zimmerman's story is true, it was legitimate self-defense and retreat was impossible. If Zimmerman stalked and killed an innocent young man, that's simply murder.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Looks like there were two separate studies, both finding an increase in homicide. I'm not surprised that without even seeing the studies, you are already starting with the denialism. After all, you have demonstrated quite clearly that you lack even the slightest understanding of statistical methodologies, controlling for confounding factors, testing for statistical significance, etc., which makes it much easier for you to ignore the facts than it would be for a scientifically literate person.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117244166
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002865878
bongbong
(5,436 posts)And, of course, they've been ignored by the gun-relgionists.
Are you posting to prove that allegedly "scientifically literate" anti-gunners are just as clueless as the garden variety antis? Are you intentionally mocking the anti-gun position?
Let's look at your original claim:
3. Of course SYG is still relevant.
Recall that the study about SYG found that SYG laws increased non-self-defense shootings. This indicates that, not surprisingly, SYG laws have an broader impact beyond just the cases where SYG laws are applicable: they encourage more questionable shootings and get more people killed.
And this partly is because they empower would-be gun heroes like Zimmerman to try and become actual gun heroes, based on the belief that SYG laws will protect them. And Zimmerman was almost right. Until the media got hold of this case, they weren't even going to charge him with anything thanks to SYG.
Here's the first source's abstract:
From 2000 to 2010, more than 20 states passed laws that make it easier to use lethal force in self-defense. Elements of these laws include removing the duty to retreat in places outside of one’s home, adding a presumption of reasonable belief of imminent harm, and removing civil liability for those acting under the law. This paper examines whether aiding self-defense in this way deters crime or, alternatively, increases homicide. To do so, we apply a difference-in-differences research design by exploiting the within-state variation in law adoption. We find no evidence of deterrence; burglary, robbery, and aggravated assault are unaffected by the laws. On the other hand, we find that homicides are increased by around 8 percent, and that these homicides are largely classified by police as murder. This suggests that a primary consequence of strengthened self-defense law is a net increase in homicide. Finally, we present back-of-the-envelope calculations using evidence on the relative increase in reported justifiable homicide, along with assumptions about the degree and nature of under reporting, to assess whether the entire increase was legally justified.
Let's see. If more people legitimately stood their ground, instead of running or taking whatever criminal assailants dished out one would expect there to be more homicides. I would also expect the police to largely classify these homicides as murder (or at least manslaughter); I would expect police to often press charges.
Let's put the pieces together.
a. More homicide (the natural result of more people standing their ground, legitimately or illegitimately)
b. More classification of homicides as murder (the natural result of more homicides, legitimate or illegitimate; police have to classify a homicide as murder or manslaughter in order to charge the shooter)
c. "This suggests that a primary consequence of strengthened self-defense law is a net increase in homicide." Of course.
d. They did "back-of-the-envelope calculations" to assess whether the entire increase in reported justifiable homicides was legally justified.
You may--or may not--understand the technical details of "difference-in-differences research design", but this study certainly does not "{find} that SYG laws increased non-self-defense shootings." It doesn't even claim to. It is scientifically illiterate to claim that it does.
I think your mocking of antis is cruel. Many of them, though clueless, don't deserve to be satirized like this.
Let's look briefly at the logical shortcomings of this study.
If you tell people that they aren't obligated to run from deadly threats but are free to defend themselves, if you tell millions of people that, some of them will not run but will follow the new law as they understand it. There will be an increase in homicides; there would be an increase in homicides if everyone obeyed the new law perfectly (which of course not everyone will). No one should be surprised by an initial increase in homicides.
The police will have to adjust to the new rules too. They will make mistakes. Some people who obeyed the new law will be charged, some who didn't will walk. No one should be surprised that police will classify many of the increased homicides as murder and charge people. By acting as if police classification is the final word, the study ignores the errors that are certain to be made as the legal system adjusts.
But the icing on the illogic cake is the "back-of-the-envelope calculations." The main problem I have is why these calculations were done. They were done, not to estimate what percentage of the claimed self-defense increase was mistaken or intentional fraud, but "to assess whether the entire increase was legally justified."
I could have saved them some time. So could many folks in Jr. High School. The entire increase wasn't legally justified. Period.
Some people will make mistakes. Some will try to game the system. Same as it ever was.
Some police will get it wrong--many at first--so using police classifications will warp your outcome, since it must be classified as a crime for the shooter to even be charged. Court findings, while not perfect, would be a much sounder measure. I would hope that judges would, on average, have a better understanding of the law than cops. How many shooters were convicted would be a better metric than how many were classified as crimes by police.
Making perfection the standard means that any reasonable calculation will show failure. But that is, I suspect, the point. Of course the entire increase won't be legally justified.
To see just how silly a standard that is, imagine that the Supreme Court made a major ruling loosening the use of deadly force by police. You may be sure that some cops will honestly get it wrong and shoot when the ruling does not allow it and some will try to game the system. Eventually, misunderstandings of the law will be corrected and the only ones trying to game the system will be the ones who always try to game the system.
The true measure of the ruling would be whether or not the ruling is just, not whether 100% of the shootings in the transition period are legally justified or whether more people are shot.
The cherry on top of the illogic icing is the lack of concern over lives saved. The abstract, at least, doesn't even take into consideration the concept of defensive gun uses being DEFENSIVE--in some cases lifesaving.
The police charged you with murder? You are guilty as charged! Your action is one of the costs of SYG.
You say you were found innocent in court? Who cares?
Clearly yours was an unjustified homicide that was caused by SYG and there was no societal benefit. Your life that was saved (never mind the other lives saved that can't be proven definitively) has no value whatsoever.
I am certain that if someone skilled in statistics and criminology (and not in the pocket of an advocacy group) wanted to estimate INNOCENT lives saved by SYG, they could do so. First there would be some fraction of the shooters. Then, using rap sheets and criminal histories, they could estimate how many people would have been killed by the felons who were wounded and jailed, had they not been apprehended. Then they could estimate how many of the dead assailants would have murdered and how many people their deaths saved. This could then be compared to the increase in deaths attributed to SYG. That would be a more legitimate cost-benefit analysis--not that simple cost-benefit analysis is the way to assess the exercise of rights.
The first time I find you citing a paper that even attempts to fill in the other side of the ledger, I will probably fall out of my chair. But that would violate not only your agenda, but the agenda of all of the people you are likely to cite, wouldn't it?
Now on to your second source:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18187.pdf?new_window=1
Of course much of what I said above applies. This study apparently focuses on changes since 2005, meaning some of them are more recent still. It takes time for the legal confusion to abate, so honest mistakes are being made. And of course there are opportunists trying to get over. These issues will decrease over time.
So what's the bottom line?
Big surprise!! It's "unlikely" that all of the additional homicides are "the killings of assailants." Some folks are trying to get over! And that implies that the bottom line, end result of the laws is negative, not that in the wake of any new law their will be opportunism. And of course, any lives that would have been taken by the legitimately killed attackers have exactly zero value.
LOL!
As I've said, the true measure of the law is whether it's just, not whether some people are trying to use it to get over or whether it's perfectly effective.
HALO141
(911 posts)For having the energy and taking the time to do what I was insufficiently motivated to do. Hahhah!
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)We have two studies. Both very clearly reported an increase in homicide following SYG. Both very clearly stated that this increase could not be explained by justifiable homicides. For example, one study found an increase of 500 to 700 homicides, versus at most 50 extra justifiable homicides.
Although you clearly don't understand the statistics involved, I would have figured that you could understand the English language well enough to at least read the abstracts and the conclusions. But I was wrong. Lesson learned: never underestimate the ignorance of gun nuts.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Lying, unintended irony, literacy failure, or an elaborate joke?
Or is it all of the above? You’re just showing off, aren’t you?
Really? Someone needs to tell whoever wrote this abstract:
Speaking of understanding the English language, you do know what “unlikely” means, don’t you? Take some time, look it up. I’ll wait.
Now, if you didn’t skip too many other English lessons, I can help you understand. You see, they don’t imagine, as you so obviously do, that they covered everything and that the “increase could not be explained by justifiable homicides.”
Not being scientifically illiterate clowns, they realize that theirs is not the definitive last word.
So I don’t have a problem with them on that; they’re not overstating their case. But there are serious issues with their apparent cost-benefit analysis.
First there’s the working exclusively on one side of the homicide ledger. Of course the implicit assumption that INNOCENT saved lives have no value is incorrect. Of course only counting lives lost that they estimate are attributable to SYG is right up your alley, so I wasn’t surprised that you ignored that criticism. That is one of the hidden columns in extremist gun control’s house of cards—we can’t examine that, can we?! We can’t even acknowledge its existence.
Then there’s pretending that police classifications of an uncertain area of law is definitive—as opposed to court rulings or even judges’ opinions. That was brilliant.
And then there’s the standard one of your papers applied—absolute, immaculate perfection—to assess whether the entire increase was legally justified. Combined with ignoring lives saved, that ensures “scientific” victory. Congratulations!
In a nutshell it’s like this:
You may know calculus like the back of your hand; for the sake of discussion let’s say you invented it. But a second apple fell on your head and now, somehow you’re convinced that it’s g=3.72 m/s^2.
“Now, Mr. Newton, your math is immaculate. Your graphs are beautiful, your equations transcendent. No one can question your understanding of calculus.
But sir, if you could direct your attention this way, I can demonstrate that g |= 3.72 m/s^2. Your calculations predict that, using g=3.72 m/s^2, this stone should take 10 second to reach the ground. But as you can see, it takes much less.”
Somehow, I’m convinced that Newton would think it through, see that his premise was flawed, and admit that his graphs and calculations were useless for an actual moon shot.
Assuming, implicitly or not, that lives saved by SYG are of zero value is like assuming that g=3.72 m/s^2 at sea level. So any statistics done based on that data will result in a skewed cost/benefit analysis that conflicts with reality. It’s not the fault of the statistics. Even flawless statistics would yield garbage.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Newton would get that, instantly. It wouldn’t have to be spoon fed to him. Nor would he, IMHO, start explaining how he invented calculus and how profound his understanding of it was and how it applied to orbital dynamics.
Unfortunately, you sir are no Newton.
This takes lot’s of imagination, but if I had no ethics or intellectual integrity, if I couldn’t think my way out of a wet paper bag, and if all I had was technical knowledge about statistical methodologies, controlling for confounding factors, testing for statistical significance, etc. (or the ability to regurgitate lines from papers I’d read and bluff my way through with non-experts) I guess I would dodge the logic and harp exclusively on statistics, too.
So I guess we do have something of an understanding. I get where you’re (probably) coming from. On the other hand, this could all be a joke or an attempt to make antis look silly. Who knows?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)In real life, I read and discuss a lot of scientific papers, and I'm used to people who read them, understand them, and come up with intelligent comments. Then I come into the gungeon, post a study, and run into a whole mob of people like you who can't and often don't bother even trying to understand the content, but instead scan for one sentence you can parse in order to sow as much doubt as possible on the politically inconvenient conclusion that you want to avoid. It's really an, umm, interesting change of pace!
Again, the study found a total increase of 500 to 700 homicides, and (at most) 50 of them were justifiable. And, even if you jiggle the assumptions around, there's no plausible way to get that 50, which by the way, is already the top end of the confidence interval, up into the range of 500 to 700 where it would explain all of the homicides. These numbers are different orders of magnitude.
If it makes you feel better that it's only "likely" that SYG causes an increase in non-justifiable homicide and not an absolute certainty, good for you. Since essentially nothing is an absolute certainty, particularly statistical conclusions which are inherently probabilistic, this isn't really an earth-shattering revelation worthy of the multiple-page rants and random tangents about Isaac Newton. Particularly given that a second independent study has come to similar findings.
Still, all things are possible. You are unlikely to win the lottery tomorrow, but you never know...
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Let's say that the study found 500 to 700 homicides, and that the author of the abstract was being modest and could have substituted "practically impossible given our assumptions" for "unlikely."
Let's leave aside the fact that, as you say, nothing is certain, and therefore your categorical statement was categorically wrong.
In presenting a cost/benefits analysis, which both studies purport to do, it is customary to actually estimate both the costs and the benefits.
Based on their abstracts, neither of these studies even makes an attempt to estimate lives saved. But yet, both clearly attempt to calculate lives lost. It's very one-sided, and the missing side isn't even mentioned.
They implicitly assume:
1. Not one of the additional SYG homicides prevented the defender's murder or the murder of another innocent person who was being defended
2. Not one of the additional SYG homicides prevented murders by ending a criminal career
3. Not one of the additional SYG shootings that didn't result in homicide prevented the defender's murder or the murder of another innocent person who was being defended
4. Not one of the additional SYG shootings that didn't result in homicide prevented murders by leading to the incarceration of a person who would have otherwise murdered.
Put another way, lives saved by SYG have absolutely zero value.
Now you can pretend, and I have little doubt that you will, that these are not intelligent critiques. Any and all critiques should be constrained to things like confidence intervals, right? Counting lives saved by SYG as utterly without value is not a problem, correct?
Now I am not an expert in criminology or statistics. I don't have a good idea of whether they have accounted for all of the plausible variables. What I do know is that any lives saved have value, and that an analysis that does not even attempt to estimate lives saved is one sided.
If they missed the entire concept of lives saved, why should I trust them on involved statistical analysis?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm sure this never occurred to you, but there is a way to measure whether SYG is actually saving lives. You see, if SYG was actually saving lives, then the homicide rate would go down, rather than up after the policy change. It's funny you bring this up, because I know of this one study where they actually measured the effect of SYG laws on homicide rates. And do you know what happened? There was actually more homicide: about 500 to 700 extra homicides per year, the vast majority of which were not justifiable.
Of course, it's possible that SYG did save some lives, but the extra lives lost to homicide exceeded the lives saved by 500 to 700. So, if there was 1 life saved, that would mean 501 to 701 extra homicides. If 20 homicides were prevented by SYG, then an extra 520 to 720 were caused. And so on.
You are free, of course, to hypothesize about all of the potential ways that SYG saves lives. Since there isn't much evidence at all that owning or carrying a gun for self-defense increases a person's safety on average, there's not much reason to believe that SYG laws are saving a lot of lives. But even if they are, according to this study, the number of lives cost exceeded the number of lives saved by 500 to 700.
There are a few problems with your analysis:
1. In a self-defense scenario, the life of the attacker and the life of the intended victim are not equivalent
If someone is about to murder you and you kill them, a life was lost. If someone succeeds in killing you, a life was lost. It's a wash, in anti-gun mentality.
I guess I'll have to say this explicitly: in a self-defense scenario, the life of the INNOCENT intended victim is worth more than the life of the criminal assailant. Denying that devalues the life of the innocent.
2. If the tool you're using can't measure the benefits, pretending that means there are no benefits is not legitimate
The lives saved by ending a criminal career—with the exception of the immediate intended victim(s)—are by definition future lives. They cannot possibly be counted using today's homicide numbers. But statistical methods can be used to estimate the probable murders of 500 to 700 real or alleged assailants. Based on the dead alleged assailants' criminal histories, it should be possible to estimate the murders they would have committed had they lived.
Yes, I know that estimates of future lives saved are just that—estimates. But that's exactly the type of problem that statistics are suited to. You can even use confidence intervals. It's not as if the future can't be dealt with using intellectual rigor and clear principles. Accountants do it all the time; have you ever heard of "accounts recievable"?
3. Using a biased and/or unqualified estimator is likely to result in a bogus estimate
According to the abstract of the study you're citing, their number of lives lost due to illigitimate self defense was based on POLICE classification, not court verdicts, grand jury sessions, judge opinions or even DA charges.
In a new area of law, with zero or very few court cases to guide them, what do you expect the police to do with 500 to 700 claimed self-defense shootings that may or may not be justified under the new and unfamiliar law? Most of the time, if the guy is dead, you shot the guy and you admit it to the cop but claim self-defense, I expect you will be classified as a murderer, at least for police purposes.
Why not use court verdicts? That could account for a lot of misclassified SYG shootings. I know it wouldn't advance the agenda, but wouldn't it be more accurate?
4. "Back-of-the-envelope calculations"
Are those "back-of-the-envelope" calculations impeccable and state of the art and do they account for every relevant variable?
To be honest, given the issues I saw reading the abstract, I haven't bothered to look at them. But I'm sure you'll vouch for them. After all, they may be one-sided, based on deeply flawed premises and grounded in a poor estimate by an illigitimate estimator, but they reached the right conclusions. Right?
I agree. That's why it's so important that the increase can't be explained by justifiable homicides.
The tool can measure the benefits very well. The benefits would show up as less murders. The costs would show up as more murders. Pretty simple, you don't need to do any fancy accounting. Just count how many innocent people die.
Right, but there is no evidence the estimator is biased and/or unqualified, and but even if you assume that the police reports grossly underestimate the number of justifiable homicides, you still find a net increase in murders.
Unlike you, an actual scientist reading the paper would judge by the content, rather than using this phrase as an excuse to dismiss the evidence.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)there might have been more claims of SYG, based on misinformation and disinformation about how the law operates. The cases were often cases where the shooter or stabber thought the magic words stop the investigation, a myth that has been mentioned here.
The perfect example was a murder case in Tampa last year. Two days after the murder, a lady turned herself in to the police claiming it was self defense and she was standing her ground. The police investigate her confession. Problem was she didn't. She was not even in the county that week let alone the store.
Your conclusion is really flawed, and your second paragraph is totally full of shit.
Suppose there is something to the theory, why didn't the same happen in Illinois in 1963? It isn't that much different than Florida's. Florida was not the first state to pass a SYG law.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Like I told TPaine7, in a way you are fortunate to be so clueless about statistical and scientific topics that you can actually convince yourself of anything. As both studies found, there were more actual cases of homicide -- more dead people, not just changes in classification -- after passage of SYG laws. But in order to understand that, you have to believe in the scientific process of gathering empirical evidence and then analyzing it systematically and impartially. In other words, the opposite of what the NRA crowd does.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Let me know when you read the actual studies. I actually believe in the scientific process. I don't believe you actually understand it.
ileus
(15,396 posts)come into play...
It's a little late to learn how the law works once the perp is on the ground.
States with SYG laws need proper online sources where citizens can do inservices and test on the law.
If fact that would make a great requirement for CHP/CC permits and renewals.
Just like in healthcare I have to do inservices every year. Some are inhouse, some are online, some are self study with testing to get the CE's needed to recert.
What's that old saying about dumbasses and not knowing the law?
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)I know they were when I last had mine and the book from the attorney general lays out the law pretty plainly. Although we don't have SYG here, in the same way Flordia does.
ileus
(15,396 posts)All I needed was my hunters ed course. My wife took her CHP class a few weeks ago and I'm sure Virginia's version of SYG and CD weren't covered that closely.
I recommend Opencarry.org and Defensivecarry.com to any new permit holder.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)Here in Ohio we have to take a 12 hour course. Normally the last two hours is range time and the first ten is all classroom work. They're NRA courses and it's basic firearms safety, firearms info, and relevant laws.
a law can be bad because it might be misinterpreted by an idiot.
spin
(17,493 posts)
June 11, 2012, 1:42 PM
Study Says ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws Increase Homicides
In April, more than a month after the shooting of Trayvon Martin, we looked the incidence of justifiable homicides in states with “stand your ground” or “castle doctrine” laws like Florida’s.
***snip***
Justifiable homicides nearly doubled from 2000 to 2010, according to the most recent data available, when 326 were reported. The data, provided by federal and state law enforcement agencies, showed a sharp increase in justifiable homicides occurred after 2005, when Florida and 16 other states passed the laws.
While the overall homicide rates in those states stayed relatively flat, the average number of justifiable cases per year increased by more than 50% in the decade’s latter half....emphasis added
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/06/11/study-says-stand-your-ground-laws-increase-homicides/
Just what is a "justifiable homicide"?
justifiable homicide n. a killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense to protect oneself or to protect another, or the shooting by a law enforcement officer in fulfilling his/her duties. This is not to be confused with a crime of passion or claim of diminished capacity which refer to defenses aimed at reducing the penalty or degree of crime. (See: homicide, self-defense)
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Justifiable+homicide
So in the states that passed victim rights laws such as "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground", "the overall homicide rates in those states stayed relatively flat, the average number of justifiable cases per year increased by more than 50% in the decade’s latter half."
Therefore I contend the laws are accomplishing their goal and have indeed allowed honest citizens to defend themselves from attack by violent individuals who were seeking to seriously harm or murder them and had the capacity to do so.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's really hilarious how brazen you guys are about taking things out of context. They found an overall increase of 500 to 700 homicides per year, but you decided to omit that part in your excerpt and only focus on the 50 extra justifiable homicides.
Basically, even accepting that "justifiable homicides" are a good thing, the increase in non-justifiable homicides was ten times larger.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)leads to the increase, what evidence do they actually have that the extra seven to nine percent caused by the laws?
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)And don't have time to really look at the studies I'll take them at face value for the moment. I have a question, do these studies a show that the increase is due to people not understanding the law or more people just using them as an excuse? Also, I'm rather worried that you don't think that avoiding dragging someone through the legal system for a justified use of deadly force is a good thing.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)"More significantly, we find the laws increase murder and manslaughter by a statistically significant 7 to 9 percent, which translates into an additional 500 to 700 homicides per year nationally across the states that adopted castle doctrine."
Michigan became a castle doctrine state in 2006 but its homicide rate has gone down since the late 80's and early 90's and has pretty much remained steady over the past 10 years. Looking at just Michigan, it appears to me that the castle doctrine has little to no effect on the homicide rate in this state.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/micrime.htm
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Briefly, in studies like these, they attempt to estimate the difference between the amount of homicide in states where the law changed versus the amount that there would have been without a change in policy. They do this by building statistical models that take into account national and local trends, crime rates in states without policy changes, and other factors that affect homicide rates, in order to isolate the effect of the policy changes.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)Using Michigan for an example, they are basically arguing that the homicide rate would have gone down instead of remaining pretty much steady had the state not become a castle doctrine state.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The idea is that a change to castle doctrine causes an increase in homicide, relative to what would have happened in absence the of the change in policy, provided that everything else was the same (ceteris paribus):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)homicide rate do anything?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It could encourage more people to own guns, which has been linked to higher homicide rates. It could encourage more people to carry guns, which means that more incidents that would otherwise not have been lethal end up with someone getting shot. It could embolden people to draw a gun at less provocation, thinking that SYG will give them legal cover. And so on.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I remember the Texas A&M economists didn't. You are describing SYG, not castle doctrine.
Other than that, it sounds more like Brady talking points than science.
BTW, doesn't that contradict the "fewer people own guns" meme?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Seriously, none of your arguments are as cogent as you think they are. When critiquing peer reviewed studies you don't like, simply quoting a counter study, at least I was honest and simply copy and pasted it, doesn't impress anyone with even a GED.
spin
(17,493 posts)A justifiable homicide is not a murder. It is merely justified self defense.
Perhaps you believe that a violent predator or an individual who intends to severely injure or murder another person that he knows, has more rights than his victim. I don't. It is my belief that when a person finds himself under attack and has good reason to assume the his/her attacker has the intention of seriously injuring or killing him, he/she has every right to use lethal force for self defense.
Of course it could be argued that a street predator or home invader might not actually injure or murder his prey even though he has the capacity to do so. Therefore the incident might have possibly ended peacefully with the victim only losing his/her money. Often though, people who engage in such unsocial activity such as home invasions or muggings on the street escalate their violence and do eventually severely injure or kill others. It should be the victims choice to use lethal force if he/she feels that it is truly necessary but if he/she does it should be up to our legal system to determine if the action was appropriate. Obviously the attorney of any person who is charged with a homicide will often claim self defense. Our legal system should determine the truth of this claim.
Use of Deadly Force Law & Legal Definition
Deadly force is generally defined as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. In order for deadly force to be justified there must be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or other innocents. Deadly force is that force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm.
The use of force is generally illegal unless it fits within the strict requirements of one of the four legal justifications. They are: self-defense, defense of a third person, crime prevention, and law enforcement. Each of these areas has specific requirements that must be met to avoid criminal liability. You may only use the amount of force that is reasonable and necessary in the situation.. This is judged by what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances. In a self-defense situation, it is only when the aggressor uses or attempts to use deadly force that you have the right to respond with deadly force. Laws vary by state, so local law should be consulted for the applicable requirements in your area....emphasis added
http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/use-of-deadly-force/
I checked out the original study cited in the article from Texas A&M University at http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf
I went to the Conclusion section on page 28 but unfortunately I can't seem to copy and paste it. Consequently I will take the time and effort to type it out.
A critical question is whether all of the additional homicides were legally justified. Using results on the effects of the law on justifiable homicide, along with the degree that justifiable homicides are underreported, we report back of the envelope calculations that make it difficult to explain the entire increase in homicide with an increase in legally justified homicide. Our view is that this provides suggestive evidence that at least some of the additional homicides were not legally justified, though we emphasis that the conclusions on the issue depend on assumptions regarding the degree and nature of the underreporting of police to the FBI....emphasis added
(God I love using copy and paste. I grew up in the 50s and the 60s and used to use a typewriter to compose documents. It was a pain in the ass.)
The bottom line is that the conclusion contains a lot of waffle words. I question "back of the envelope calculations" and while I will agree that there may be "suggestive evidence that at least some of the additional homicides were not legally justified", I will merely point out that the conclusion basically supports my view. The majority of the homicides that were caused by the implementation of victim rights laws WERE justifiable. The authors even admit this!
Therefore victim rights laws such as "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground" accomplish more good and save more lives of innocent victims than actually result in unjustified murder. We don't live in a utopia and our legal system sometimes fails badly. It is possible that an individual might get away with murder when there is no evidence or witnesses of the crime. This happened even before the passage of victim rights laws.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)A justifiable homicide is not murder, agreed. But the studies I cited pointed out clearly that, at best, a small fraction of the increases in homicides were justifiable. The majority were murders. For example, one study reported 500 to 700 additional homicides, but at most 50 extra justifiable homicides. In fact, 500 to 700 is greater than the total number justifiable homicides every year reported by UCR, which means that there is no plausible way to explain away all of the extra murders as justifiable.
The "waffle words" you are talking are simply pointing out that, even under the most friendly assumptions to your argument, there is simply no way, based on the evidence, to justify your claim that all of the additional homicides were justifiable. Even if we interpret the numbers in the most favorable way to the "justifiable homicide" argument, we still don't come anywhere close to the writing off all of the additional homicides as justifiable.
spin
(17,493 posts)Perhaps you need to read it again.
A critical question is whether all of the additional homicides were legally justified. Using results on the effects of the law on justifiable homicide, along with the degree that justifiable homicides are underreported, we report back of the envelope calculations that make it difficult to explain the entire increase in homicide with an increase in legally justified homicide. Our view is that this provides suggestive evidence that at least some of the additional homicides were not legally justified, though we emphasis that the conclusions on the issue depend on assumptions regarding the degree and nature of the underreporting of police to the FBI....emphasis added http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf
The conclusion of the study I linked to does not say " But the studies I cited pointed out clearly that, at best, a small fraction of the increases in homicides were justifiable. The majority were murders." In fact it says just the opposite. I don't disagree the statement that at least some of the homicides were not legally justified.
Your first link in reply #10 at http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=61475 leads to the study I mentioned.
Your second link from the same post takes me a a summary of a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research which I can't view without paying $5.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)TPaine7
(4,286 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)The part of the study you cited earlier actually gave the numbers: 500 to 700 additional homicides, of which 50 were justifiable, and even that 50 was the upper end of the confidence interval. That would mean that at most 10% of the additional homicides were justified. Then they go on to point out that, even if you jiggle the assumptions about what a justified homicide is, you still don't explain away the whole 500 to 700 as being justifiable.
For example, even if you accept Gary Kleck's estimate that justifiable homicides are underestimated by 5X, you still only get to at most 250 additional justifiable homicides. Of course, Kleck is a highly controversial pro-gun criminologist whose results have often been refuted by other more mainstream researchers, so it is likely that this 5X figure is high, but the point is, that even if you take the assumptions most favorable to the "justifiable homicide" interpretation: that is, you use the high end of the confidence interval, and you multiply the figure by Kleck's 5X estimate, you still find 250 justifiable homicides, versus between 250 and 450 non-justifiable.
And, by the way, the conclusion you cite doesn't actually say the opposite of what I claimed. It says that at least some of the homicides were non-justifiable (i.e. murder), but it doesn't say either way whether the majority are justifiable or not. This is an understandable decision by the authors, given that any increase in non-justifiable homicide would be a significant finding. However, if you look at the actual numbers, you find that I was correct.
Also, here's the text of the other study, if you're interested.
ftp://ftp.iza.org/RePEc/Discussionpaper/dp6705.pdf
spin
(17,493 posts)in the conclusion?
If they were confident of their data it seems logical that they would have used far stronger language in the conclusion. It sounds to me like they had a agenda, No matter how hard you try to spin the words "at least some of the homicides were non-justifiable" is a long ways from stating that the majority were murder.
Let's look at some other data:
I-Team: Justifiable homicides double since "Stand Your Ground"
More citizens claim self-defense in recent years
Posted: 03/27/2012
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Homicides labeled “justifiable” have doubled in Florida in the last 5 years, according to statistics obtained by the I-Team from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
Between 2000 and 2006, the number of justifiable homicides by citizens in Florida never rose above 18. Since 2007, the number has been 40 or higher every year. The numbers provided only apply to cases where a felon was killed by a private citizen
***snip***
Justifiable homicides of a felon by a private citizen in Florida:
2000: 12
2001: 12
2002: 12
2003: 16
2004: 8
2005: 18
2006: 12
2007: 42
2008: 41
2009: 45
2010: 40
Source: Florida Department of Law Enforcement
http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/i-team-justifiable-homicides-double-since-stand-your-ground
Once again a justifiable homicide is NOT A MURDER! (I do realize that you recognize the difference but many people misinterpret the words which works to the media advantage in its effort to portray victim rights laws as evil.) In my opinion justifiable homicide should be called legitimate self defense.
It should be obvious to anyone with commonsense that victim rights laws such as "shall issue" concealed carry, "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground" laws will increase the number of homicides which include legitimate self defense. The main object of such laws was to allow victims to defend themselves against a violent attack using an effective weapon and not to first have to retreat which is a poor strategy in a real life or death fight. A secondary goal was to reduce crime.
I feel the overwhelming number of cases involving such victim rights laws which didn't go to trial and also those in which a jury found that legitimate self defense was used, prove that the first goal has been accomplished and many honest people have been able to use legitimate self defense. The violent crime rate in Florida has decreased since such laws were passed but honestly it is hard to attribute this drop to victim rights laws as there are far too many factors to consider in the equation.
Of course any individual who murders another person will hire attorneys who will use whatever they feel is the best argument to defend their client. If our judicial system works a truly guilty person will end up in jail. Unfortunately in some cases there is not enough evidence or witnesses to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This sad truth existed before victim rights laws were passed as "dead men tell no tales" and without evidence or witnesses it is hard to prove guilt. Also often the rich and privileged members of our society can afford the hire excellent defense attorneys who are capable of mounting a successful defense against prosecuting attorneys who lack the same level of skill. And there is no denying that sometimes racial bias influences prosecutors and juries. Our legal system has it weaknesses but then we don't live in a utopia.
I believe that we sit on opposite sides of the issue. I favor allowing honest citizens to own firearms for self defense in their homes or to carry with them on the streets if they have a carry permit. Sometimes honest and sane citizens actually use firearms legitimately to defend their health or life against an attacker but admittedly it is rare. Since victim rights laws passed our violent crime rate has fallen significantly. While it is impossible to attribute this drop to these laws it still remains a fact that the violent crime rate did not increase despite the skyrocketing sale of firearms and the passage of victim rights laws.
You hold a different view which is fine. I'm not quite sure where you stand so if you wish please answer these questions.
1) Do you support the civilian ownership of firearms for self defense in the home?
2) Do you support any form of legal concealed carry for civilians?
3) Do you support the right of a citizen to use lethal force to defend against an attack from an individual who intends to severely injure or murder his victim and has the capacity to do so?
4) Do you support any victim rights laws such as "castle doctrine" or "stand your ground".
5) Do you wish the ownership of firearms should be limited to only police and military in our nation?
I appreciate the fact that you provided a link to another report which I was unable to access however I feel it doesn't disprove my view.
Another motivating factor for the need for such analysis is a rise in the number of justified homicides nationally since 2005 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010). According to data from the Uniform Crime Reports, the total number of justifiable homicides has steadily increased from 196 in 2005 to 278 in 2010.6 This is in contrast to the total number of overall killings, which has continued to decline during the same period. However, it is not straightforward how to interpret the rise in justifiable homicides. On the one hand, it might be that more civilians are killing each other and claiming self-defense (Palazzolo and Barry, 2012). In other words, the increase in justifiable homicide might reflect deaths that would not have occurred otherwise. This might support the concerns raised by the critics over the SYG laws. On the other hand, it might also be a mechanical shift as the new laws now result in more deaths being labeled as justifiable homicides. Unfortunately, the official data sources like the Supplemental Homicide Reports do not allow detailed information on the nature of circumstance in each incident. Nevertheless, the coincidence in trend for justifiable homicides and the expansion of the new SYG laws is suggestive of a possible causal link, which deserves closer investigation.
In a comprehensive effort, the Tampa Bay Times has identified about 200 SYG cases and their outcomes through media reports, court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys in Florida (Hundley et al., 2012). The report finds that in about 70 percent of the cases where the SYG law was invoked to avoid prosecution, individuals have gone free. The report also cites numerous examples which support the perception that these laws encourage individuals to be aggressive even in situations where retreat is possible.9
Despite these concerns, there are also others who argue that the colorful examples highlighted in the media draw a misleading picture of the actual impact of these laws and that the laws have largely been successful in protecting citizens against wrongful attacks and intrusions. There have also been examples cited in support of the desirable impact of these laws. For example, a woman with a known history of prostitution killed a client with his own gun when he had threatened to kill her. The murder charge against the woman, who could have been prosecuted under the old law, was dropped because of Florida’s newly enacted SYG law (Lake, 2006).
While there is an abundance of anecdotal evidence on the impact of SYG laws on crime, there is very little credible investigation of the subject to determine whether these laws represent good policy for public safety.
...emphasis added
ftp://ftp.iza.org/RePEc/Discussionpaper/dp6705.pdf
I actually like this report as I feel it is far more fair than your first link. It does admit that there is a possibility that "stand your ground" laws might actually be effective in stopping an attack from a predator who intends to seriously injure or kill an innocent victim. Obviously we need better data.
I also appreciate the fact that you have presented your view without insulting me. People often hold different views on an issue and disagree. To me the most important thing is that they discuss such differences in a polite manner. This can enable both sides of any issue to consider the opposite viewpoint without reacting in an angry manner. This might lead to compromise which is unusual today in our society.
While I firmly support the "stand your ground" law in Florida I do believe that it should be rewritten to eliminate any confusion and ambiguities that currently exist.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The paper found 500 to 700 additional homicides due to SYG. Now, if all of those extra homicides were justifiable, that would change things, because it would mean that SYG wasn't actually causing any additional loss of innocent life. But, as the authors point out, even if you stretch the assumptions in that direction, you still can't account for the entire increase in terms of justifiable homicides. This isn't weaseling, it's typical: the authors are pointing out that their conclusions are still valid even under unfavorable changes of assumptions.
Of course, if you read the entire paper, you find out that under the most likely assumptions, only a small fraction of the increase in homicides is justifiable. Still, whether the majority of the additional homicides are justifiable or not is of secondary importance. Let's assume that SYG caused an increase in 300 justifiable homicides and 200 murders. That would still be bad -- it would mean 200 additional innocent lives lost. If SYG were actually saving lives, then we would find a drop in the number of murders, due to the fact that more would-be murder victims are successfully defending themselves.
As far as the Florida data goes, that is great, but that's only one series of data from one state. The two studies we are discussing do a far more thorough job of looking at the data systematically from all states that have passed SYG laws, and also taking into account national trends and other factors, etc. And, yes, they did find that SYG produced more justifiable homicides. However, and more importantly, they also found that SYG produced more murders.
Last edited Wed Aug 15, 2012, 05:55 PM - Edit history (1)
That's like balancing the books while ignoring accounts receivable. As an intentionally over-the-top example, if you had taken out the top 1,000 nazis early in Hitler's career you would have increased the German homicide rate. And that would have been a bad thing using your analysis.
Your assumption that ending the criminal careers of 300 violent criminals saves no lives is not nearly as bad as ignoring the damage of the top 1,000 nazis. But is is just as illegitimate in principle.
Furthermore, you assume that the 200 other lives are innocent. That is a perfectly legitimate assumption in a court of law, but not in a cost benefit analysis. Surely some of the other claimed attacks actually happened, they just didn't justify a potentially lethal defense. And surely some of those homicides also stopped violent criminal careers.
Let me be perfectly clear. I do not countenance unjustified potentially lethal defenses. But if you are going to do a cost/benefit analysis, you have to at least make a good-faith effort to calculate the benefits. All of them.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 15, 2012, 05:22 PM - Edit history (1)
You are assuming that there is a positive effect of having more criminals being killed by SYG-ers. But there is zero evidence of this. If more justifiable homicides reduces the number of murderers in the population, and this results in less murders, this would show up as a reduction in the homicide rate.
Like I said before, the bottom line here is the number of murders. Less murders good. More murders bad. It's a very straightforward, outcome-based measure.
eta: Just to be clear, the word "murder" here means non-justifiable homicide.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)It is an assumption, but it's not much of an assumption.
I don't think you could find any social scientist or MD of any persuasion who would not admit that some percentage of killed violent offenders would have gone on to murder. I do assume that they are correct, but I don't think that it's much of an assumption. I have a very hard time believing that you doubt it, given your reliance on statistics.
Is this the assumption of which there is zero evidence?
Now of course current measures cannot directly access future benefits. But STATISTICAL METHODS are well suited to estimate such things. It's fascinating that you, of all people, refuse to admit that.
The ultimate measure of success, of course, is what is actually measured over time. What cannot be measured now will be measurable in the future. Ultimately, time will tell.
But a rise in homicides was quite predictable under the most favorable view of the law. Initially, people—CCW permitees, police, criminals and even judges—will be confused. After a while, things will settle down. What will be interesting is how the new equilibrium compares to the old equilibrium.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You are suggesting that there is a positive externality associated with self-defense shootings, in that dead criminals won't go on to kill any more innocent people. Maybe, based on a bunch of assumptions, but it's also possible that the externality could even be negative. And even if we accept that the externality is positive, there's certainly no reason to believe it is sizable.
What's more, the short to medium term effects of this externality are already taken into account by the study, which, IIRC, looked at date over the course of the 2000-2010 decade. You are welcome to speculate about what the long-term effects are going to be, but as usual, your speculations are evidence-free. What the evidence shows is that, in the short to medium term, the effects of SYG laws are more innocent lives lost.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)How could the externality be positive? Do you think that some of the criminal assailants—people whose behavior legally justified a potentially lethal defense—would have gone on to save lives? Enough to outweigh the lives taken by the assailants who would have murdered? Isn't that a little like the guy who would have won the Nobel prize if he hadn't been shot robbing the 7-11?
Wow.
What are the "bunch of assumptions"? "Some violent offenders will go on to murder" is just barely an assumption, but where are the rest of the "bunch"? "Dead men don't murder" is not exactly an assumption. That's a scientific fact.
I agree that the externality is small; well under half of the offenders would have gone on to murder. But there are other problems as discussed elsewhere. I won't revisit them here.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)A justified homicide results in a person dying. That has a traumatic effect on the family of that person, and could drive other people into a life of crime, particularly if the person had children. It could prompt revenge violence. It also has a traumatic effect on the person who did the shooting. There could also be "broken windows" type on the community at large from having a person killed, maybe desensitization to gun violence. And so on. If you want to measure the externality resulting from a justified homicide, you can't just take into account the people that the dead person doesn't go on to murder, you have to look at the net effect. You are living in the black/white world where there are only good guys and bad guys.
And of course, then there is the fact that the dead person in this case is still a person. I am not someone who believes that once a person decides to commit a crime, or is perceived as a threat by a self-appointed gun vigilante eager to score a DGU, that this person's life ceases to have value. So in my mind, a "justified" homicide is still a bad thing, albeit not as bad as a murder.
Anyway, like I said, we can speculate about the long term effects and externalities, but the short to medium term effects of the externality are already built into the study. Any reduction in homicide from clearing the population of criminals that would have occurred within the first few years would already show up in the results, and it obviously didn't come very close to compensating for the direct increase in murders.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)
By very, very carefully selecting the years at which it looked, and ignoring greater trends in violence that occurred *GASP* WITHOUT changes in SD law....
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...that he won't be using the excuse that 'the red light appeared green due to relativistic effects related to the speed of his car'. Not to belittle the significance of the tragic events (or rampant stupidity of the currently charged individual) which began this ugly business, but conjecture on the chain of events, nuances of meaning and laws that may or may not have relevance has been expanded far beyond simply concluding that it's Kevin Bacon's fault.
I wouldn't be surprised at all to find a copy of the Weekly World News at the drugstore register in a decade or so blaming a currently unborn infant with an unfortunate ratio of limbs to eyeballs for the shooting.
For now I feel the economy can withstand having a collective 15-20 journalists unemployed until the actual trial.
Just saying...
muntrv
(14,505 posts)not to do so, thus making George the aggressor?
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)If you pursue someone in a non-threatening way and never do anything that justifies their using force against you, you are not the aggressor.
IF.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)None of us would have ever heard of him had he followed his training.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)He agreed with me that Zimmerman should have followed the instructions of the dispatcher irregardless of the legal authority.
We will probably never known exactly what happened during the encounter but if Zimmerman was aggressive and threatening, Martin may well have been within his rights to defend himself.
I am not a cop nor do I play a vigilante. I carry a legally concealed weapon for self defense for the admittedly small chance that I might find myself under attack from an individual who wishes to seriously injure or kill me. If I see something truly suspicious happening in my neighborhood I will call the police and I will follow their instructions.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)it was still under investigation. Protests were based on a media circus.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)That's why they can't leave home without a gun or two.
spin
(17,493 posts)unarmed or not.
An eighteen year old male might well be in peak physical condition and quite capable of seriously injuring or murdering a 66 year old individual such as myself who suffers from degenerative disc disease and is a candidate for a hip replacement.
I walk with a noticeable limp and like the weakest member of a herd of animals I might attract the attentions of a predator. At one time I was somewhat skilled in the marital arts and might have easily countered an attack from a teenager effectively. Due to my age and physical condition and the fact that my skills in unarmed self defense have deteriorated significantly, I chose to carry both non lethal forms of self defense such as pepper spray as well as a .38 caliber snub nosed revolver.
Should I merely accept that a predator has the right to murder me or to put me in a hospital for an extended stay? Please explain why I should merely submit.
Let's suppose that I am a 100 pound female who finds herself under attack from a 180 pound male who is in great physical condition and has every intention of raping and possibly murdering her. Should I merely allow the rape to happen and enjoy the experience? If my attacker strangles me and leaves me dead after the rape is this acceptable?
Does any honest citizen have the right to use legitimate self defense to defend his health or his life against an attacker who intends to seriously injure or murder him/her?
I will politely suggest that you appear to support the rights of criminals to rape and pillage far more than you support the right of honest citizens to use legitimate self defense.
Please defend your view.
ileus
(15,396 posts)think of the savings for Uncle Sam if you let a kid kill you.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)you are correct.
spin
(17,493 posts)when I volunteered to serve during the Vietnam war era.
That proved to be bullshit.
I tried to sign up when I retired and the Veterans Administration laughed at me. They said I had far too much money to qualify. Let me assure you that I am FAR from being rich. I might be considered at the best lower middle class if not upper poor class.
Uncle Sam is an asshole.
I should note that I love my country but never trust anything that it promises. I'll be damn lucky if my Social Security and Medicare doesn't run out before I die. I feel sorry for those younger than I am. They WILL get screwed royally. Both major parties will bear the responsibly for the failure. We elect people to represent us and they sell out to the rich and powerful.
Just my opinion based what I consider to be simple reality.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)First I am not distrustful of others. I practice situational awareness which means that basically I don't walk around with a cell phone glued to my ear unaware of what is happening around me. That by itself is possibly the best method of self protection.
Despite your views that a person is excessively paranoid if he/she carries lethal force for self defense I have absolutely no reason to do so with the exception that I personally wish to be prepared for the slight chance that I am attacked by an extremely dangerous predator. The weapon I carry is extremely light and very easy to carry. A five shot .38 caliber snub nosed revolver is sometimes called a "mouse gun" but such a weapon has often proven to be very effective in stopping an attack.
I notice that you failed to answer my question:
Does any honest citizen have the right to use legitimate self defense to defend his health or his life against an attacker who intends to seriously injure or murder him/her?
Of course that doesn't surprise me in the least as obviously you don't.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)using a laser an sensor instead of a "claker". Kind of noisy but effective.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)and you need to add that $200 fed tax to each one.
Probably will wake the neighbors, too.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)For some reason that doesn't surprise me.