Rise in justifiable homicides linked to weak gun control laws

[jpak]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/05/stand-your-ground-gun-control-data?newsfeed=true

Rising numbers of civilian justifiable homicides across the US are closely linked to states with both weak gun controls and stand-your-ground laws, according to a Guardian analysis of FBI and other data, which show a 25% increase in such killings since the controversial self-defence laws started being introduced around 2005.

Stand-your-ground (SYG) measures, which have attracted increasing scrutiny since the fatal shooting of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin by a neighbourhood watch volunteer in Florida, allow citizens to use deadly force when they believe their life is in danger, without requiring them to retreat or try to escape the threat first.

Florida was the first state to introduce an SYG law in 2005 and similar measures have now been adopted in some form by more than 20 states. Many were passed in 2006.

<snip>

Across the US, such killings have risen sharply over the last five years, according to the data provided by the FBI and the Florida department of law enforcement. Between 2001 and 2005, there were 1,225 homicides classed as justifable, compared to 1,528 in the period 2006-2010. By contrast, violent crime overall has been falling.

<more>

[PavePusher]

1. So, can you demonstrate, by supporting evidence, that the increase is attributable to....

shootings that should not be classified as defensive?

Please, show your proof.

[jpak]

3. dead bodies - gun shot wounds - shooters free

yup

[AH1Apache]

4. So, no proof just more of the jpak shuffle and sidestep.

Got it. At least try to look intelligent when you post such dribble.

[jpak]

5. you mean drivel - not dribble - right?

people should carry dictionaries - not guns

[AH1Apache]

8. No, I meant dribble

you know, like the false statements that constantly "dribble" out of your mouth.

[PavePusher]

21. jpak Phale, what a surprise. n/t

[digonswine]

12. This is not meant as support for the OP-

but many people here on the pro-gun side point to the falling rates of violent crime in this country as proof that more lax gun laws do not harm anyone, or even as proof that these laws help to decrease the violent crime rate. Admittedly, most of them only point it out and do not use it as direct proof--though it is certainly implied.

[PavePusher]

20. The vast majority of people point out those facts....

clearly state that there is no proof of correlation. Any implication after that is solely in the mind of the reader.

[digonswine]

25. I disagree--

Maybe MAYBE half the time at best. The mind of this reader sees that there is no correlation and looks for that disclaimer.
Normally, people on the pro-gun side bring this up during the debate about the safety of lax gun laws. Why bring it up at all in that debate if it has no relevance?

[sarisataka]

32. The converse is true however,

that as there has been an increase in lax gun laws there has been no increase in crime ala the blood-in-the-streets-at-every-traffic- accident mantra.

There has been a decrease in crime that parallels more relaxed gun laws but there is no evidence that the laws have caused the decrease.

[digonswine]

36. Agreed-

I do not adhere to the idea that lax gun laws result in a (mythical) Wild West society. I see no evidence that more legal guns result in a lower or higher rate of violent crime. On either side of the debate, we only hear of individual cases that get attention--this is the Fox News method of looking at complex issues and is unfortunate.

[hack89]

33. The point we are making with those facts is that more guns =/= more gun deaths. Thats it. nt

[digonswine]

35. I know why you do it--

but the those numbers have little if anything to do with more guns on citizens. To imply otherwise is not productive. My suspicion is that people carrying weapons makes little difference in increasing or decreasing violent crime in general. It is most likely due to other societal factors.

[hack89]

38. And if more guns do not represent a threat to society

then why the anti-gun histrionics we hear constantly?

You are right about one thing - law abiding citizens have proven they can own and carry guns responsibly. They have nothing to do with gun crime so lets focus our attention on criminals.

[Gman]

2. According to the article, it's pretty much an unsupported assertion

the data has lots of holes, and each state reports what it wants as justifiable homicide. Just more horse shit.

[gejohnston]

6. one thing small thing the fact checker missed

Florida was the first state to introduce an SYG law in 2005 and similar measures have now been adopted in some form by more than 20 states. Many were passed in 2006.

Illinois passed SYG in 1961. Other states have been SYG by common law before then including California, Washington, Utah, Kentucky.

[shadowrider]

7. They're justifiable. What's the problem?

[digonswine]

11. I would guess that-

folks' definition of justifiable are different. Labeling them as such might not make it ok-other than in a legal sense.

[shadowrider]

13. Fair enough.

[Simo 1939_1940]

16. Fair point - however I'm left to wonder if those who have a problem

with the legal definition of justifiable homicide have problems with legal definitions that support their viewpoints.

[digonswine]

23. I can't say-

Personally-I know there are times when homicide is justifiable. Each case must be looked at individually. I do think that, if there is a situation where the living person is armed, and the dead one isn't, it should be carefully scrutinized.

[shadowrider]

24. The dead one could have been armed with nothing more than arms and fists

At 58, if someone came at me like that, there is NO WAY I could use my "natural fighting skills" to fight him evenly. Just. Can't. Do. It.

Fists can kill. I'd even things up a bit.

[digonswine]

26. There certainly are situations-

where it is justified-I would simply like each case to be looked at carefully. I do support gun rights, but the responsibility is great for the one doing it.

[shadowrider]

27. I agree

Thanks for the civil discourse.

[digonswine]

37. No problem-

there are those of us out there who support gun rights but have problems with a few of the laws and have, what I feel, are legitimate concerns. The whole debate seems to bring about extreme polarization and I do not see why that is--(not referring to you).

[Ashgrey77]

28. No, sorry

A definition is a definition. If it's legal, it's legal it doesn't matter how "you" or anyone else "feels" about it. You are mixing morality and law, they have nothing to do with each other and I would advise you to not make that mistake. You cannot debate law with morality, you'll get laughed out of court.

[digonswine]

34. I'm not in court-

no one said the laws were subject to my whims--I think it would be obvious that if something is legally "justified", it has nothing to do with it being morally justifiable. I have seen here at times that it appears to be OK if the law says it is OK.
I am not mixing anything--the reason I could never be in law enforcement is because I find many of our laws to be immoral and being in the position of enforcing them would make me a hypocrite. Thanks for the "advice", though.

[Atypical Liberal]

22. Exactly what I came here to say. If they are justifiable, what is the problem?

The laws are obviously allowing people to defend themselves. This is a good thing.

[dkf]

9. If you are exchanging justifiable homicides for murders is that a bad thing?

Doesn't that mean at least the victims were the one who survived?

[shadowrider]

10. You don't understand. Jpak would prefer the victims not defend themselves

and become victims in the real sense.

[spin]

30. It does make it more difficult to ban firearms ...

if they actually are proven to work to save lives when restrictive gun laws do little or nothing to reduce violent crime.

It is quite possible that some who wish to see truly draconian gun laws finally pass wish to try to repeal "shall issue" concealed carry, castle doctrine and stand your ground laws as such laws actually allow citizens a chance to defend their homes and themselves against violent attack. It would help their cause far more if violent crime was actually increasing.

It must drive such people absolutely crazy that the violent crime rate in our nation has dropped dramatically since such laws passed in many states. The statistics do not prove that more guns reduce crime but they do show that more guns does not equal more crime.

[Riftaxe]

14. Since I know what justifiable means...

I have no problem with this.

[TPaine7]

15. Exactly. You beat me to it. n/t

[krispos42]

17. Good.

Unless, of course, you and the Guardian are advocating for more successful violent criminal attacks.

[ileus]

18. The people aren't having to roll over and become victims....true progress.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. You act like that is a bad thing.

I think it is pretty good that people who would have been victims are able to fight back.

[spin]

31. It's obvious from reading through the replies in this thread ...

that equating justifiable homicide with murder doesn't fly in the Gungeon. Maybe the mainstream media will be able to run with the story and convince many less knowledgeable people that legitimate self defense is a bad thing. I doubt it, but then many people actually believe that the stand your ground law is a license to kill and promotes vigilantism because of the articles published and shown on the media.

[spin]

29. A justifiable homicide is not necessarily a bad thing ...

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

The fact that justifiable homicides are increasing merely shows that more innocent civilians were able to use a firearm for legitimate self defense and stop an attack from an individual who planned to seriously injure or kill.

While it is always tragic when a person dies it is my opinion that if an attacker who was clearly in the wrong loses his life it is preferable to an innocent victim losing his.

I often get the impression from reading articles such as the one in the OP that those who dislike concealed carry laws are also not fond of self defense. That may be because their goal is to to incrementally pass stricter and stricter gun laws and to eventually ban all firearms with the possible exception of some designed specifically for hunting.

Of course they realize that they can only take small steps to achieve their goal. They also realize that none of their efforts will be effective in reducing violent crime. But this fact can be positive for their goal as it enables them to convince voters and politicians to pass even more restrictive laws which also will fail, leading to even more restrictive laws.

But when citizen actually use firearms to legitimately defend themselves, it hurts the cause of those who oppose firearm ownership. But even this fact can be used to paint civilian gun ownership in a bad light. It's clever to publish an article with a headline like "Rise in justifiable homicides linked to weak gun control laws". Of course the important word is "homicide" which most people relate to murder. However the actual definition is:

The killing of one human being by another human being.

Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts. These homicides are regarded as justified or excusable. For example, individuals may, in a necessary act of Self-Defense, kill a person who threatens them with death or serious injury, or they may be commanded or authorized by law to kill a person who is a member of an enemy force or who has committed a serious crime. Typically, the circumstances surrounding a killing determine whether it is criminal. The intent of the killer usually determines whether a criminal homicide is classified as murder or Manslaughter and at what degree.emphasis added
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide