It's a Jon McNaughton, so you know it's good! A study in the January issue of JAMA Internal Medicine finds that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, passed in 2005, resulted in an "abrupt and sustained increase in the monthly homicide rate" compared to the period before the law was enacted under former Gov. Sad Jeb Bush. Homicide rates overall saw a 24.4 percent increase, while homicides involving firearms went up 31.6 percent. Who would have guessed?
OH, lord, the trifecta. (1) Suicides are still gun deaths. You can't actually separate them out and say they don't count. (2) Your statistic about young black men is literally false. (3) If you don't think the rest of the world isn't laughing at us because of our insane refusal to deal with our sad gun addiction, you're not listening.
I thought we were at the beginning of a golden-age of reason, tolerance, and prosperity, but then the radical-right and the Trumpkins came along, and now it seems like we're at the end of a golden-age, and about to slide down into a dark age of superstition, bigotry and hate.
That isn't an effort to "brush off" the increase or so make an argument that those who were killed "need to be killed". It's a legitimate observation of a major hole in the 'study' that tried to directly link the passage of that law with that increase.
Chicago and Baltimore as just 2 examples had record breaking murder rates as a result of gun violence with numbers skyrocketing to levels not seen since the late 80's early 90's and they certainly never passed stand your ground laws. Incidentally those 2 cities also saw a disproportionate increase in those shooting deaths in their African-American communities as well a disturbing omission since the article states that the studies authors supposedly compared it to other areas of the country and found that there had been no increase.
"a comparison with states that didn’t have “stand your ground” laws showed no change in homicide rates in those states, suggesting that the laws make deadly shootings a lot likelier."
The article didn't give us the entire statistical breakdown but was it just coincidence that the homicide rate among African-Americans went up almost exactly the same percentage as the overall homicide rate? One could just as easily draw that conclusion from what was written even though I suspect you'd be wrong.
Also there's no mention of a corollary rise in the number of claims of standing their ground that stood up to investigation or were found to be illegitimate. Surely if that law was to blame there would have been a similar rise if the number gun related assaults and deaths in which stand your ground defense would have been claimed.
This is just another example of trying to attach correlation to causation based on selective data points; and it excludes any mention of the increase in similar crime patterns in urban areas across the country.
There are tons of links to homicide rates and increased gun violence in other states and urban areas that trace the rise and history going back into the 70's and earlier if you bother to spend just a very few minutes on Google. There's little question that since the financial crisis of 2007-08 that the rates have gone up substantially in many (but not all) of our cities and therefore in many of our states.
Unfortunately this site limits the number of those links I could provide but they're out there for those who want to cross check the validity of this article and the study it's based on and you won't need a grant from the government using taxpayer money to do it. You also won't need a universities name or that of a fine sounding organization to give its' added weight to your work's soundness.
He never claimed to be a saint. All he ever claimed was that he was getting the crap kicked out of him and he was afraid the kid was going to kill him. A kid that was no saint himself and did something that ended up biting him in the ass.
See HazooToo above. The false description by the media was that it allowed people to shoot anytime they "felt threatened" -- when in fact it requires a _reasonable_ fear of death or grave bodily harm -- with the prosecutor, judge and jury having the last word as to whether that fear was reasonable.
The media was "exaggerating to make a point" (i.e. lying). But it is from the media that most people get their information.
You're going off on all sorts of tangents. The article was about the SYG law, not the 2nd Amendment. And your argument is analogous to blaming anyone opposed to outlawing Islam for every act of Jihadi terrorism in the west.
"So this is the republican's vision for america" Apparently it is the vision of a lot of democrats and independents as well judging by reality. A vision of a nation where you are allowed to defend yourself and your home.
Meanwhile, back in Florida, state Sen. Rob Bradley introduced a bill in December that would make it even easier to win a “stand your ground” case, shifting the burden of proof from the shooter to the person who got shot. So if you claim you were standing your ground, whoever you shot would have to prove you weren’t defending yourself, which could get a trifle difficult if the target ends up dead. That seems like a great incentive to make sure you finish ’em off.
Not to mention, he's defending an absurd "principle" that has been shown over and over and over and over NOT to be any sort of deterrent, but rather, leading to 33,000 needless American deaths every year.
Seriously? You're just going to ignore the way the law was fully understood, for decades, to be severely limited, until the Supreme Court, thanks to Scalia, made a decision that even RICHARD NIXON's former Chief Justice said was "the biggest fraud, I repeat fraud, ever perpetrated on the American people"? The notion that it somehow applied to personal ownership? Which has only been in place since the 1980s, and has been utterly, laughably, insanely disastrous, causing literally millions of deaths since then?
So you're just fine with 33,000 Americans dying every year, toddlers killing their moms in Walmart, fearful elderly white men killing black teenagers because they don't like their music or just the way they're laughing, fearful rubes shooting their own kids because "it sounded like an intruder," kids killing their "machine gun instructors" by accident, every insane wingnut or crazed sociopath being able to lay his hands (and it's always "his" hands) on automatic weapons at a moments' notice, every momentarily depressed teenager being able to easily find dad's gun and make a tragic, irreversible choice?
You are aware that we're the absolute laughingstock of the world for this, even BEFORE the whole Trump thing? But you go ahead and feel good about it and try to pretend that absolute facts are "false claims."
That's exactly the kind of misinformation that I'm referring to. It doesn't permit shooting merely if you "feel" threatened. It's only if you have a _reasonable_ fear of death or grave bodily harm. Under the law, the prosecutor, judge and jury have the last word as to whether your fear or proclaimed fear was reasonable -- but the news articles didn't say this.
Therefore, _they're_ the ones responsible if people are shooting for no good reason in the belief that all they need to do is say, "I felt threatened."
OH, lord, the trifecta. (1) Suicides are still gun deaths. You can't actually separate them out and say they don't count. (2) Your statistic about young black men is literally false. (3) If you don't think the rest of the world isn't laughing at us because of our insane refusal to deal with our sad gun addiction, you're not listening.
Righteously shot? You seem like you might be a violence-craving right-wing radical.
I thought we were at the beginning of a golden-age of reason, tolerance, and prosperity, but then the radical-right and the Trumpkins came along, and now it seems like we're at the end of a golden-age, and about to slide down into a dark age of superstition, bigotry and hate.
That isn't an effort to "brush off" the increase or so make an argument that those who were killed "need to be killed". It's a legitimate observation of a major hole in the 'study' that tried to directly link the passage of that law with that increase.
Chicago and Baltimore as just 2 examples had record breaking murder rates as a result of gun violence with numbers skyrocketing to levels not seen since the late 80's early 90's and they certainly never passed stand your ground laws. Incidentally those 2 cities also saw a disproportionate increase in those shooting deaths in their African-American communities as well a disturbing omission since the article states that the studies authors supposedly compared it to other areas of the country and found that there had been no increase.
"a comparison with states that didn’t have “stand your ground” laws showed no change in homicide rates in those states, suggesting that the laws make deadly shootings a lot likelier."
The article didn't give us the entire statistical breakdown but was it just coincidence that the homicide rate among African-Americans went up almost exactly the same percentage as the overall homicide rate? One could just as easily draw that conclusion from what was written even though I suspect you'd be wrong.
Also there's no mention of a corollary rise in the number of claims of standing their ground that stood up to investigation or were found to be illegitimate. Surely if that law was to blame there would have been a similar rise if the number gun related assaults and deaths in which stand your ground defense would have been claimed.
This is just another example of trying to attach correlation to causation based on selective data points; and it excludes any mention of the increase in similar crime patterns in urban areas across the country.
http://www.baltimoresun.com...
There are tons of links to homicide rates and increased gun violence in other states and urban areas that trace the rise and history going back into the 70's and earlier if you bother to spend just a very few minutes on Google. There's little question that since the financial crisis of 2007-08 that the rates have gone up substantially in many (but not all) of our cities and therefore in many of our states.
Unfortunately this site limits the number of those links I could provide but they're out there for those who want to cross check the validity of this article and the study it's based on and you won't need a grant from the government using taxpayer money to do it. You also won't need a universities name or that of a fine sounding organization to give its' added weight to your work's soundness.
He never claimed to be a saint. All he ever claimed was that he was getting the crap kicked out of him and he was afraid the kid was going to kill him. A kid that was no saint himself and did something that ended up biting him in the ass.
See HazooToo above. The false description by the media was that it allowed people to shoot anytime they "felt threatened" -- when in fact it requires a _reasonable_ fear of death or grave bodily harm -- with the prosecutor, judge and jury having the last word as to whether that fear was reasonable.
The media was "exaggerating to make a point" (i.e. lying). But it is from the media that most people get their information.
You're going off on all sorts of tangents. The article was about the SYG law, not the 2nd Amendment. And your argument is analogous to blaming anyone opposed to outlawing Islam for every act of Jihadi terrorism in the west.
"So this is the republican's vision for america" Apparently it is the vision of a lot of democrats and independents as well judging by reality. A vision of a nation where you are allowed to defend yourself and your home.
Oh thank Dog for that.
Meanwhile, back in Florida, state Sen. Rob Bradley introduced a bill in December that would make it even easier to win a “stand your ground” case, shifting the burden of proof from the shooter to the person who got shot. So if you claim you were standing your ground, whoever you shot would have to prove you weren’t defending yourself, which could get a trifle difficult if the target ends up dead. That seems like a great incentive to make sure you finish ’em off.
It's a case of he says, dead men tell no tales.
Penis size. Makes them feel bigger.
Not to mention, he's defending an absurd "principle" that has been shown over and over and over and over NOT to be any sort of deterrent, but rather, leading to 33,000 needless American deaths every year.
Seriously? You're just going to ignore the way the law was fully understood, for decades, to be severely limited, until the Supreme Court, thanks to Scalia, made a decision that even RICHARD NIXON's former Chief Justice said was "the biggest fraud, I repeat fraud, ever perpetrated on the American people"? The notion that it somehow applied to personal ownership? Which has only been in place since the 1980s, and has been utterly, laughably, insanely disastrous, causing literally millions of deaths since then?
So you're just fine with 33,000 Americans dying every year, toddlers killing their moms in Walmart, fearful elderly white men killing black teenagers because they don't like their music or just the way they're laughing, fearful rubes shooting their own kids because "it sounded like an intruder," kids killing their "machine gun instructors" by accident, every insane wingnut or crazed sociopath being able to lay his hands (and it's always "his" hands) on automatic weapons at a moments' notice, every momentarily depressed teenager being able to easily find dad's gun and make a tragic, irreversible choice?
You are aware that we're the absolute laughingstock of the world for this, even BEFORE the whole Trump thing? But you go ahead and feel good about it and try to pretend that absolute facts are "false claims."
You are speaking truth and sense, something the Lizard Cortex Rubes can't understand.
A classic.
That's exactly the kind of misinformation that I'm referring to. It doesn't permit shooting merely if you "feel" threatened. It's only if you have a _reasonable_ fear of death or grave bodily harm. Under the law, the prosecutor, judge and jury have the last word as to whether your fear or proclaimed fear was reasonable -- but the news articles didn't say this.
Therefore, _they're_ the ones responsible if people are shooting for no good reason in the belief that all they need to do is say, "I felt threatened."