Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[Blind groper]

Just located another study - this time on the Castle Doctrine, or Stand your Ground laws.

http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf

The results of the Texas A and M University study show that these ludicrous laws do not reduce burglaries and other crimes overall, but do lead to a statistically significant 8% increase in murders.

I would like to add to that, a Harvard University study published in 2000 in the British Medical Journal (definitely peer reviewed and very reputable).
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.full

I quote :

"Even after excluding many reported firearm victimizations, far more survey respondents report having been threatened or intimidated with a gun than having used a gun to protect themselves. A majority of the reported self defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges. "

Which discredits Seth's commonly repeated statements about guns used for self defense.

The simple rule is, and always has been, more guns means more gun crime, and more people shot.

[Collector1337]

Judges can rule that, "it wasn't self defense" all they want, but that doesn't make it true.

If you're in my house and you're clearly there to cause me or my family harm, if you don't immediately run away or follow my orders to lay on the ground with your hands on your head, I'm going to shoot you. I'm at home. I have no where to run to, which is even more true when you have a family to protect. I'm not running away when my family is still in the house and doesn't know what's going on.

[Blind groper]

Collector

I already know that gun nutters are not going to accept data and rational conclusions about guns. I do not need your continued denials to confirm that.

The simple fact is that more guns mean more gun crime and more gun murders. This simple point has been made time and again in these discussions. I know that gun nutters do not have any respect for human life, and are totally willing to accept that 100,000 innocent people each year are going to be shot, and 20,000 of them will die. Gun nutters believe that human life is of insufficient importance to get between them and their games with lethal toys. However, that is not my belief. We have but one life, and there is no deity or after-life. Thus, shortening that one life is a terrible crime, and reducing the number of such lives shortened is a human duty.

The example of Japan is instructive. The Japanese government has been tightening its gun laws for many years, to the degree that very, very few of its citizens now possess hand guns. The result is that the hand gun homicide rate for its entire population is now less than 3 per year. The USA plays fast and loose with hand guns, and 8,000 people per year (20 year average) die each year from hand gun homicide as a result. If you cannot see that as a national disgrace, there is something wrong with you.

[Seth]

Just located another study - this time on the Castle Doctrine, or Stand your Ground laws.

First flaw:
From the abstract:

Results indicate the laws do not deter burglary, robbery, or aggravated assault. In contrast, they lead to a statistically significant 8 percent net increase in the number of reported murders and non-negligent manslaughters.

It's not relevant what the statistics say because the law was intended to, and does secure the INDIVIDUAL right to use force in one's home without fearing the legal consequences. Personal safety is not subject to statistical infringement, it's absolute and accrues to each person. The states who enact such laws acknowledge that people are entitled to absolute safety and security in their homes and they provide relief from the often abusive and onerous actions of anti-gun, pro-criminal, anti-individual rights police officers and DA's who like to prosecute citizens for defending themselves against violent intruders inside their own homes. Such laws are a direct response to criminal-coddling liberal assholes who thing that home intruders deserve the benefit of the doubt and have some "right" not to get shot dead. They don't, and many states have said exactly that with "Castle Doctrine" laws.

In short, we find compelling evidence that by lowering the expected costs associated with using lethal force, castle doctrine laws induce more of it.

Well, I should certainly hope so, since that's the precise purpose of the law. The flaw is the assumption that an increase the use of lethal force is axiomatically a bad thing. It's not...when it's a violent intruder inside one's home.

We then examine whether lowering the expected cost of using lethal force results
in additional homicides, defined as the sum of murder and non-negligent manslaughter.

Not relevant, as I said. The right of each and every person to defend themselves, their families and the security of their homes is not subject to statistical analysis of "additional homicides" that might occur.

Finally, we perform several exercises to examine the possibility that the additional reported criminal homicides induced by the laws were in fact legally justified, but were misreported by police to the FBI.We conclude on the basis of these findings that it is unlikely, albeit not impossible, that all of the additional homicides were legally justified but were misreported by police as murder or non-negligent manslaughter.

Translation: "We have no idea whether the additional "homicides" were lawfully justified killings, and that conflicts with our pre-determined anti-gun agenda, so we're going to waffle and be as dismissive as we can of that argument without actually having any evidence that that is not exactly what happened because we're too lazy to actually go and look at the police reports for those "additional homicides," we just make ex-recto assumptions about the FBI data instead."

These findings also have significant policy implications. The first is that these laws do not appear to offer any hidden spillover benefits to society at large in the form of deterrence.

Translation: "We think that any protection the laws offer the individual outweigh our mindless horror at the notion that a criminal will be killed by a homeowner, so we're going to deny any "hidden spillover benefits to society at large" because we are collectivists who believe that the individual is unimportant and that the collective is important and therefore every legislative act must only benefit the collective at the expense of the individual."

On the other hand, the primary potential downside of the law is the increased number of homicides. Thus, our view is that any evaluation of these laws ought to weigh the benefits of increased leeway and protections given to victims of actual violent crime against the net increase in loss of life induced by the laws.

Translation: "We're bleeding-heart, criminal-loving liberal nitwits who care more about reducing the "loss of life" even if it means increased victimization of people in their homes than we do about the absolute right of each individual to be secure and safe in their home even if it requires killing an intruder."

Absolutely typical anti-gun liberal/socialist/progressive pre-determined conclusion pseudo-scientific twaddle.

Better luck next time.

[Blind groper]

It's not relevant what the statistics say because the law was intended to, and does secure the INDIVIDUAL right to use force in one's home without fearing the legal consequences.

Read the wording again, Seth.

The stand your ground laws lead to an increase of 8%, about 600 people, murdered each year. The word is murder. Not legal shooting of a home invader. Murder. Defined as an illegal killing.

[Seth]

It's not relevant what the statistics say because the law was intended to, and does secure the INDIVIDUAL right to use force in one's home without fearing the legal consequences.

Read the wording again, Seth.

The stand your ground laws lead to an increase of 8%, about 600 people, murdered each year. The word is murder. Not legal shooting of a home invader. Murder. Defined as an illegal killing.

Nope, the word was "homicide", which is vaguely defined by the authors, and even the authors admit that it is possible that ALL (or just some) of the additional "homicides" were mis-reported lawful killings, which you would know if you actually read the paper in full. Go to the last page, where they admit this possibility and admit that they can't figure out how to prove their conclusions.

[Collector1337]

Collector

I already know that gun nutters are not going to accept data and rational conclusions about guns. I do not need your continued denials to confirm that.

More bigotry.

The simple fact is that more guns mean more gun crime and more gun murders.

Why do you only care about gun crime? Isn't overall crime much more important?

I suppose not to you, because then you'd have to accept the data that crime went UP in the UK and Australia after they banned guns.

I know that gun nutters do not have any respect for human life,

Are you really that stupid and ignorant to believe this? Really?

and are totally willing to accept that 100,000 innocent people each year are going to be shot, and 20,000 of them will die.

LOL! You're figures are laughable and clearly a lie. Shove them back up your ass where you pulled them out from.

Gun nutters believe that human life is of insufficient importance to get between them and their games with lethal toys.

More ignorance.

What you mean to say, is that BECAUSE we value life and its great importance, is why we are so adamant about defending them as best as we can with the best tool for the job.

However, that is not my belief. We have but one life, and there is no deity or after-life.

Since you believe in no afterlife, I'd think you'd be more concerned about defending this life properly. Being disarmed and leaving yourself open to victimization, is a pretty shitty way to ensure survival. I'm not comfortable being at the mercy of others. That's just plain stupid.

The example of Japan is instructive.

Yeah... let's compare Japan with their massive suicide rate to the US! The cultures are totally the same!

The Japanese government has been tightening its gun laws for many years, to the degree that very, very few of its citizens now possess hand guns.

Perhaps if you had any intellectual honesty whatsoever, which you obviously don't, maybe you would look at the murder rates before they banned guns, and then after, and you'd find that there is less murders in general and it has nothing to do with guns.

The result is that the hand gun homicide rate for its entire population is now less than 3 per year.

Again, only gun murders matter. Not all murders.

The USA plays fast and loose with hand guns, and 8,000 people per year (20 year average) die each year from hand gun homicide as a result. If you cannot see that as a national disgrace, there is something wrong with you.

So, now we're back down to 8,000 are we? It appears that it is YOU who likes to play "fast and loose" with your figures.

Yet again, if you had any intellectual honesty, you'd know that the vast majority of "hand gun homicide" is gang members killing each other. You're going to take the problem of inner city gang crime and transpose it as all of America's problem? Talk about stupid.

What about a state like North Dakota which has fewer gun laws, and more guns around in general, but the number of murders a year is single digits (and that's ALL murders, not just gun murders that you only care about), compared to Illinois which has harsh gun laws, but many more murders because of gang violence.

So, how can there be so few murders in a state with so many guns?

You know what's the disgrace? YOU, and your total cluelessness. You should try getting some fucking nuance and context to talk about a complex subject, that you like to oversimplify into "guns are bad! we must ban guns! mmmk?"

Your attempt at a guilt trip is pathetic, as if gun owners are responsible for when someone else kills someone. Are you responsible for alcohol related deaths because you have a glass of wine with dinner?

[Collector1337]

It's not relevant what the statistics say because the law was intended to, and does secure the INDIVIDUAL right to use force in one's home without fearing the legal consequences.

Read the wording again, Seth.

The stand your ground laws lead to an increase of 8%, about 600 people, murdered each year. The word is murder. Not legal shooting of a home invader. Murder. Defined as an illegal killing.

Nope, the word was "homicide", which is vaguely defined by the authors, and even the authors admit that it is possible that ALL (or just some) of the additional "homicides" were mis-reported lawful killings, which you would know if you actually read the paper in full. Go to the last page, where they admit this possibility and admit that they can't figure out how to prove their conclusions.

Don't forget that even when a cop shoots someone and kills them, that is placed into the category of "homicide." Justified self-defense deaths are as well.

[Jason]

Homo caedere

[Blind groper]

To Collector

Re facts on guns in the USA.


Get these figures and accept them, because they are official statistics, agreed upon by groups such as the FBI, and the Centers for Disease Control. These vary a bit year to year, so I have rounded the numbers to the nearest 1,000.

There are 100,000 shootings of people each year in the USA. Of that group, 22,000 result in deaths. 12,000 gun deaths are suicides and 10,000 are murders. Other gun deaths, like accidental shootings are negligible by comparison. Of the 10,000 gun murders, 8,000 are committed with hand guns.

The USA has a murder rate of 4.3 killings per 100,000 people per year (total of 16,000 murders with all weapons), and half of those murders are done with hand guns. By comparison, other western democracies such as Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany etc have a quarter of the murder rate per capita. My country has a murder rate that is one fifth of that of the USA. The primary difference between the disgustingly high murder rate in the USA, versus the lower rates in other western democracies, is guns.

Violent crime rates are more or less similar between the USA and other western democracies (vary about 100%). However, few of those violent crimes in other western democracies result in killings. In the USA, a much higher percentage of violent crimes result in deaths, for the simple reason that criminals have access to hand guns.

**The most common situation in the USA that leads to murder is, interestingly, arguments. Mainly between young men. Typically, two guys get into a verbal fight and one ends up totally losing his temper, pulling out a hand gun, and shooting the other guy. In other western nations, that situation may end up with a fist fight, and people getting cuts and bruises, or even broken bones, but rarely being killed. Killings are much more common in the USA for the simple reason that more people carry loaded hand guns. The total number of murders due to this kind of argument is a little more than half of all the hand gun murders.

It is also interesting to note that, of all claims that someone has used a gun in successful self defense, the most common such situation is also an argument, in which one person pulls a hand gun and threatens the other with it. Because people think with their gonads, and are prone to rationalise their actions to make themselves look good, those guys claim this to be a successful self defense. In fact, it is not, and their actions have been determined by American judges to be illegal.

** This information comes from the latest edition of the Skeptic magazine (American version), which has a special on gun homicides in America.

[MrJonno]

Don't forget that even when a cop shoots someone and kills them, that is placed into the category of "homicide." Justified self-defense deaths are as well

After all in civilized countries that's a normal occurrence, we had one incident in 2011 in the UK and that caused a nationwide riot.
If you need to count the number of police killings or self defence homicides then your society is fucked.

Glad to live in a country where we don't even debate if the police should be armed never mind the average member of the public

[Coito ergo sum]

In most countries, that is a normal occurrence. It's only a few, small, isolated, well-protected, mostly ethnically and culturally homogeneous countries in western Europe where it is an abnormal occurrence. It has been a habit for some time now for those countries to designate themselves as "civilized" and the rest of the world as "uncivilized" and "savage," thought. That bit is nothing new.

[MrJonno]

In most countries, that is a normal occurrence. It's only a few, small, isolated, well-protected, mostly ethnically and culturally homogeneous countries in western Europe where it is an abnormal occurrence. It has been a habit for some time now for those countries to designate themselves as "civilized" and the rest of the world as "uncivilized" and "savage," thought. That bit is nothing new.

Western/Most of Eastern Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan ie the entire 1st world

[Coito ergo sum]

In most countries, that is a normal occurrence. It's only a few, small, isolated, well-protected, mostly ethnically and culturally homogeneous countries in western Europe where it is an abnormal occurrence. It has been a habit for some time now for those countries to designate themselves as "civilized" and the rest of the world as "uncivilized" and "savage," thought. That bit is nothing new.

Western/Most of Eastern Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan ie the entire 1st world

Nonsense. Most of eastern Europe, it is a "normal occurrence".

Oz, NZ and Canada together are what? 60 million people? Combined, they hardly make a blip. Then you have like eight or 10 countries in western Europe, and then Japan.

And, the first world IS just a few countries out of the nearly 200 in the world. So, viewing like, 180 countries or so in the world as "uncivilized" -- while typical of northwestern Europeans for hundreds of years -- is not particularly useful.

[Collector1337]

In most countries, that is a normal occurrence. It's only a few, small, isolated, well-protected, mostly ethnically and culturally homogeneous countries in western Europe where it is an abnormal occurrence. It has been a habit for some time now for those countries to designate themselves as "civilized" and the rest of the world as "uncivilized" and "savage," thought. That bit is nothing new.

Western/Most of Eastern Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan ie the entire 1st world

Wrong.