Stand your ground under fire

[philip964]

http://blog.chron.com/hottopics/2012/06 ... der-rates/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Stand your ground increases murder rates
And this was from Texas A and M

[speedsix]

...it's dishonest of them to lump justifiable homicides with manslaughter in this "study"...and not to report the decrease in violent CRIME that's taken place...yes, there have been a lot of people killed...but they were the bad guys getting killed, instead of the law-abiding citizens...they picked and chose the numbers they wanted...instead of giving a complete report...idiots abound...

...murder and manslaughter have NOTHING to do with "stand your ground" laws...so if they increase, it's not pertinent to this study...

...where's John Lott when you need him???

[Kadelic]

It really annoys me that the two cases mentioned in the article keep being referenced as "stand your ground" cases. Neither case really has any relevance to stand your ground because in both instances the shooters initiated the conflict instead of letting LEO's do their job. Ridiculous. That, and what speedsix said.

Also, it should be noted that there is a difference between SYG and the Castle Doctrine which the study also seems to be based on: "...finding that murder and manslaughter cases increased between 7 to 9 percent in those states with castle doctrine laws."

[stealthfightrf17]

Did I miss something, or was there just a bunch of unfounded assumptions

[speedsix]

Did I miss something, or was there just a bunch of unfounded assumptions

...yup...right here http://blog.chron.com/hottopics/2012/06" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... der-rates/

[The Annoyed Man]

In times past, TAMU would have more self-respect than to publish a flawed study. Now it seems no better than UT.

[VMI77]

...it's dishonest of them to lump justifiable homicides with manslaughter in this "study"...and not to report the decrease in violent CRIME that's taken place...yes, there have been a lot of people killed...but they were the bad guys getting killed, instead of the law-abiding citizens...they picked and chose the numbers they wanted...instead of giving a complete report...idiots abound...

...murder and manslaughter have NOTHING to do with "stand your ground" laws...so if they increase, it's not pertinent to this study...

...where's John Lott when you need him???

Fox was promoting this on their radio news yesterday. I knew without even seeing the "study" that it was pure propaganda intended to attack SYG laws; and it was obvious that they'd count BGs killed in the numbers because that's how they play the game. If you're referring to their target audience as "idiots," OK, but the people creating these bogus studies aren't idiots --they're liars and they know exactly what they're doing.

And, oh yeah, I don't believe it's any "coincidence" this "study" came out after the TM shooting.

[Heartland Patriot]

Yeah, that Democrat politician referenced in the article said they're going to get the Castle Doctrine thrown out in the next state legislative session. I don't think that is remotely possible, but if it were to happen, I can imagine a whole lot of state politicians that would be looking for new jobs...and yes, I think I will get a hold of Mr. Lott and let him know about it. THIS is the kind of stuff the antis eat up and it needs to be refuted.

EDITED TO ADD: Email sent to Mr. Lott to let him know about this one.

[Heartland Patriot]

And Mr. Lott took an interest and contacted the individuals who created that study. His reply to me was pretty in-depth and a bit above my educational experience I will admit, so I'll have to read it a couple of times to get the gist of it.

[RPB]

Radio yesterday mentioned this

Local Announcer: They proved Stand you ground increased "violent crimes" (Announcer error = The category "violent crime" is not the same as "justified self defense uses in which a criminal loses")

He also said Stand your ground causes criminals to get armed ... where criminals would break in unarmed otherwise ...because the law SHOULD say the law abiding one must retreat and run away from the criminal instead of standing ground to protect life and property

(Criminals know that law abiding guys would retreat if a law said so ... because they'd follow a law.... right? So sure criminals wouldn't have a need for guns any more .... )

On E-bay ...I bet that guy would bid on a rainbow colored unicorn that burps up marshmallows

[Heartland Patriot]

UPDATE:

I also emailed the two authors of the study. And in my own way, I griped them out about it (no foul language used, I assure you all). One of them replied to me that their study merely pointed out data and it wasn't THEM saying this is for or against the laws, either way. Sound like typical liberals to me in that they believe their work to be free of bias, when in fact it is tailor-made to bolster the antis in their attack on SYG and Castle Doctrine laws. I am beginning to believe them to all to be (as someone else put it) in denial about their bias. Its either that, or they are lying through their digital teeth. Because to me, using faulty data and crunching their numbers in a suspect manner (which is what I gathered from reading John Lott's email reply to me), they built the bias into the study right from the get-go. And, of course, the mainstream media and press ran with it while yelling through a megaphone.

[RPB]

http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We find no evidence of deterrence;
burglary, robbery, and aggravated assault are unaffected by the laws. On the other hand,
we find that murder and non-negligent manslaughter are increased by 7 to 9 percent. This
could represent either increased use of lethal force in self-defense situations, or the
escalation of violence in otherwise non-lethal situations. Regardless, the results indicate
that a primary consequence of strengthening self-defense law is increased homicide.

So, in other words, but saying the same thing:

Regardless, the results indicate that a primary BENEFIT (criminals see it as a consequence) of strengthening self-defense law is increased dead criminals and live victims.

[Skiprr]

Interesting: http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2012/ju ... mes_061112.

Preliminary figures released today indicate that the number of violent crimes and property crimes reported by law enforcement across the nation during 2011 decreased when compared to 2010 figures.

Specifically, according to our Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report, January-December 2011, violent crimes fell 4.0 percent, and property crimes dropped 0.8 percent. Arson—also a property crime even though its data is considered separately because of various levels of participation by reporting agencies—was down 5.0 percent overall....

In the violent crime offenses category, murder was down overall 1.9 percent from 2010 figures, while forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault all fell 4.0 percent.

According to the figures released today by the FBI, the estimated number of violent crimes in 2010 declined for the fourth consecutive year. Property crimes also decreased, marking the eighth straight year that the collective estimates for these offenses declined.

The 2010 statistics show that the estimated volumes of violent and property crimes declined 6.5 percent and 2.7 percent, respectively, when compared with the 2009 estimates. The violent crime rate for the year was 403.6 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants (a 6.5 percent decrease from the 2009 rate), and the property crime rate was 2,941.9 offenses per 100,000 persons (a 3.3 percent decrease from the 2009 figure).

Obviously, I'm missing something. If self-defense laws are causing violent crime to rise, why is the FBI reporting a decline in violent crime for five consecutive years?

Change by-year in violent crime in the U.S. as reported by the FBI's UCR:

• 2011: -4.0%
• 2012: -6.5%
• 2010: -5.3%
• 2009: -1.9%
• 2008: -.07%
• 2007: +1.9%
• 2006: +1.3%
• 2005: -1.2%

In June 2004, the FBI discontinued use of the "Crime Index" in the UCR and began publishing totals for violent crime and property crime separately. In 2004 they offered this graph to show the newly-evaluated trend of violent crime rates, cumulative, from 2000:



Either the FBI's painstakingly compiled statistics are wrong, or this new "study" is wrong. Guess which one I'll choose to believe...

[speedsix]

...this "study" is like a pipe cleaner...if you don't like the way it looks...twist it a little bit more...

[57Coastie]

Study out of A&M! I guess Gov. Rick will turn around and run the next time he encounters a coyote.

Jim