Analysis of “Stand Your Ground” Self-defense Laws and Statewide Rates of Homicides and Firearm Homicides

[Somerville]

Obviously nonsense carried out by some of those liberal academic types who just hate guns. Homicide rates have increased since the onset of the covid pandemic.

Analysis of “Stand Your Ground” Self-defense Laws and Statewide Rates of Homicides and Firearm Homicides​

Key Points
Question Are “stand your ground” (SYG) laws associated with increases in violent deaths, and does this vary by US state?

Findings In this cohort study assessing 41 US states, SYG laws were associated with an 8% to 11% national increase in monthly rates of homicide and firearm homicide. State-level increases in homicide and firearm homicide rates reached 10% or higher for many Southern states, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana.

Meaning These findings suggest that SYG laws were associated with increased homicides each year and that the laws should be reconsidered to prevent unnecessary violent deaths.

Abstract
Importance Most US states have amended self-defense laws to enhance legal immunities for individuals using deadly force in public. Despite concerns that “stand your ground” (SYG) laws unnecessarily encourage the use of deadly violence, their impact on violent deaths and how this varies across states and demographic groups remains unclear.

Objective To evaluate the association of SYG laws with homicide and firearm homicide, nationally and by state, while considering variation by the race, age, and sex of individuals who died by homicide.

Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study used a controlled, multiple-baseline and -location interrupted time series design, using natural variation in the timings and locations of SYG laws to assess associations. Changes in homicide and firearm homicide were modeled using Poisson regression analyses within a generalized additive model framework. Analyses included all US states that enacted SYG laws between 2000 and 2016 and states that did not have SYG laws enacted during the full study period, 1999 to 2017. Data were analyzed from November 2019 to December 2020.

Exposures SYG self-defense laws enacted by statute between January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2016.

Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcomes were statewide monthly rates of homicide and firearm-related homicide (per 100 000 persons) from January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2017, grouped by characteristics (ie, race, age, sex) of individuals who died by homicide.

Results Forty-one states were analyzed, including 23 states that enacted SYG laws during the study period and 18 states that did not have SYG laws, with 248 358 homicides (43.7% individuals aged 20-34 years; 77.9% men and 22.1% women), including 170 659 firearm homicides. SYG laws were associated with a mean national increase of 7.8% in monthly homicide rates (incidence rate ratio [IRR],1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12; P < .001) and 8.0% in monthly firearm homicide rates (IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.13; P = .002). SYG laws were not associated with changes in the negative controls of suicide (IRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.01) or firearm suicide (IRR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02). Increases in violent deaths varied across states, with the largest increases (16.2% to 33.5%) clustering in the South (eg, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana). There were no differential associations of SYG laws by demographic group.

Conclusions and Relevance These findings suggest that adoption of SYG laws across the US was associated with increases in violent deaths, deaths that could potentially have been avoided.

Surprisingly, the Washington Post found that the situation may not be as simple as the "gun banners" would like to make it

The largest jumps in homicides and firearm homicides — as high as 33.5 percent — occurred in southern states including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Missouri. In contrast, stand-your-ground laws were not associated with significant changes in Arizona, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia, the study found.

That suggests stand-your-ground is not the only factor at play, the researchers acknowledge.

[. . .]

Some advocates have promoted stand-your-ground as a way to reduce violence, by ensuring that victims can retaliate against an assailant and deterring crime. But the researchers note that no states saw drops in homicide after passing them and that the country as a whole reported an “abrupt and sustained” spike in rates of monthly homicide and firearm homicide.

 

[MrWonka]

Obviously nonsense carried out by some of those liberal academic types who just hate guns. Homicide rates have increased since the onset of the covid pandemic.

So you're not arguing that stand your gun laws have reduced violent crime, you're arguing that they might not be the reason there was more violent crime?
Either way, these numbers sure seem to indicate that stand your ground laws are not reducing violent crime.

 

[Rucker61]

So you're not arguing that stand your gun laws have reduced violent crime, you're arguing that they might not be the reason there was more violent crime?
Either way, these numbers sure seem to indicate that stand your ground laws are not reducing violent crime.

Doesn't a crime have to be committed before stand your ground can be invoked?

 

[MrWonka]

Doesn't a crime have to be committed before stand your ground can be invoked?

The theory here is that people will be less likely to commit a violent crime if they know there's a good chance that they could end up dead.
But as usual, criminals never really expect to get caught, and generally are too desperate to consider the risks. The result is that harsh punishments and threats of violence do very little to discourage anything.

 

[Somerville]

Doesn't a crime have to be committed before stand your ground can be invoked?

Nope, the person with the firearm only has to believe that they are being threatened or that a crime is about to happen.

Link to a Florida law firm's explanation of the law

 

[Rucker61]

The theory here is that people will be less likely to commit a violent crime if they know there's a good chance that they could end up dead.
But as usual, criminals never really expect to get caught, and generally are too desperate to consider the risks. The result is that harsh punishments and threats of violence do very little to discourage anything.

Given that criminals have this mindset, self defense should be encouraged.

 

[MrWonka]

Given that criminals have this mindset, self defense should be encouraged.

Meh, not really. De-escalation tactics should be encouraged. More often than not the gun gets you into trouble not out of it. In the best-case scenario, you end up in a struggle for your life that you may very well lose.
In the worst-case scenario, the pure and simple fact that you have a gun makes you more likely to pull it in a situation you shouldn't.
Turns out the type of person who is paranoid enough to think they need a gun also tend to end up having itchy trigger fingers.

 

[Rich2018]

People should have a requirement to retire if possible before drawing a firearm is even considered.

 

[RF667799]

Meh, not really. De-escalation tactics should be encouraged. More often than not the gun gets you into trouble not out of it. In the best-case scenario, you end up in a struggle for your life that you may very well lose.
In the worst-case scenario, the pure and simple fact that you have a gun makes you more likely to pull it in a situation you shouldn't.
Turns out the type of person who is paranoid enough to think they need a gun also tend to end up having itchy trigger fingers.

How many millions of people who legally carry compared to how many cases of "itchy trigger fingers"?

 

[Rucker61]

Meh, not really. De-escalation tactics should be encouraged.

Like what? If some has a weapon, what are the nice words we should say?

More often than not the gun gets you into trouble not out of it. In the best-case scenario, you end up in a struggle for your life that you may very well lose.

True, but that could happen not fighting back. It's why I practice with my firearm drawing from AIWB.

In the worst-case scenario, the pure and simple fact that you have a gun makes you more likely to pull it in a situation you shouldn't.

Please show the white paper that supports your pure and simple fact.

Turns out the type of person who is paranoid enough to think they need a gun also tend to end up having itchy trigger fingers.

Perhaps this is supported in the same white paper.

 

[TurtleDude]

The theory here is that people will be less likely to commit a violent crime if they know there's a good chance that they could end up dead.
But as usual, criminals never really expect to get caught, and generally are too desperate to consider the risks. The result is that harsh punishments and threats of violence do very little to discourage anything.

harsh punishments or getting "Rittenhoused" tends to prevent recidivism though. I do agree with most of what you say about criminals not expecting to be caught. A criminal law professor I had in law school-a guy who was the death penalty PD for a major league PDs office at one time, said his studies found that certainty of punishment, rather than severity, was more likely to deter hard core criminals. in other words, if every single murderer got 8 years for committing a murder, than would cause far more deference if one in 10 was boiled alive (his example)

 

[Rich2018]

harsh punishments or getting "Rittenhoused" tends to prevent recidivism though. I do agree with most of what you say about criminals not expecting to be caught. A criminal law professor I had in law school-a guy who was the death penalty PD for a major league PDs office at one time, said his studies found that certainty of punishment, rather than severity, was more likely to deter hard core criminals. in other words, if every single murderer got 8 years for committing a murder, than would cause far more deference if one in 10 was boiled alive (his example)

Trouble is many homicides are hot blooded with people acting on impulse and just not thinking.

 

[TurtleDude]

Trouble is many homicides are hot blooded with people acting on impulse and just not thinking.

you have any statistics on how many murders are impulsive vs premeditated?

 

[MrWonka]

How many millions of people who legally carry compared to how many cases of "itchy trigger fingers"?

The question is: Do more guns lead to less death?
The answer is a resounding NO!

Stats of the States - Homicide Mortality

www.cdc.gov

For as much as right-wing asshats want to talk about violence in Chicago, New York, or California, the fact is homicide rates are the highest in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.
You want to avoid violent crime? Move to Minnesota, New England, or the Pacific Coast where the liberals live.

 

[TurtleDude]

The question is: Do more guns lead to less death?
The answer is a resounding NO!

Stats of the States - Homicide Mortality

www.cdc.gov

For as much as right-wing asshats want to talk about violence in Chicago, New York, or California, the fact is homicide rates are the highest in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.
You want to avoid violent crime? Move to Minnesota, New England, or the Pacific Coast where the liberals live.

well we also know that millions upon millions more normal capacity 9mm Handguns and millions and millions more semi auto magazine fed rifles bought in the last 30 years has not caused violent crime to increase either

the highest rates of violent crime tend to take place in inner city areas dominated by Democrats

 

[Rucker61]

The question is: Do more guns lead to less death?
The answer is a resounding NO!

Stats of the States - Homicide Mortality

www.cdc.gov

For as much as right-wing asshats want to talk about violence in Chicago, New York, or California, the fact is homicide rates are the highest in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.
You want to avoid violent crime? Move to Minnesota, New England, or the Pacific Coast where the liberals live.

We do know that the number of guns in the US increased by 270 million from 1986 to 2019 yet the homicide declined over that same time period by 42%.

Blaming crime on the number of guns suggests that you want to reduce the number of guns in order to address crime. Is this true in your case?

You should focus your geographic crime rates down to the city and even neighborhood levels to see where the safety and the danger exists.

 

[RF667799]

The question is: Do more guns lead to less death?
The answer is a resounding NO!

Stats of the States - Homicide Mortality

www.cdc.gov

For as much as right-wing asshats want to talk about violence in Chicago, New York, or California, the fact is homicide rates are the highest in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.
You want to avoid violent crime? Move to Minnesota, New England, or the Pacific Coast where the liberals live.

You didn't answer my question, and seem determined to bleat partisan attacks. Nice talking to you.

 

[Rich2018]

you have any statistics on how many murders are impulsive vs premeditated?

Do you ?

In recent shootings, in fast food restaurants, employees have been shot for telling a customer to leave because the dining area was closed, or because their order was short

Hot tempers and guns = hot blooded shootings

OK, in neither incident, were people actually killed but in the latter, the employee was shot in the face:

Restaurant worker survives being shot in the FACE over hamburger

Anthony Rodriguez, 26, survived the January 30 shooting, which left his spine fractured and portion of the bullet still lodged in his throat.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[TurtleDude]

Do you ?

In recent shootings, in fast food restaurants, employees have been shot for telling a customer to leave because the dining area was closed, or because their order was short

Hot tempers and guns = hot blooded shootings

OK, in neither incident, were people actually killed but in the latter, the employee was shot in the face:

Restaurant worker survives being shot in the FACE over hamburger

Anthony Rodriguez, 26, survived the January 30 shooting, which left his spine fractured and portion of the bullet still lodged in his throat.

www.dailymail.co.uk

wow, one shooting. I will raise you the manson killings, the son of Sam shootings, the Zebra killings, the DC sniper and of course Steven Paddock's Las vegas killing spree that was planned for at least a year

 

[MrWonka]

You didn't answer my question, and seem determined to bleat partisan attacks. Nice talking to you.

Your question is irrelevant. The goal is to reduce violent crime.

So what we need to determine is:
A = what are the odds that you will be a victim of a violent crime.
B = what are the odds that having a gun would save you
C = what are the odds that the gun will get you into trouble in the first place.

If A * B is less than C you shouldn't carry a gun around. Spoiler alert: C is definitely greater than A * B.

 

[RF667799]

Your question is irrelevant. The goal is to reduce violent crime.

So what we need to determine is:
A = what are the odds that you will be a victim of a violent crime.
B = what are the odds that having a gun would save you
C = what are the odds that the gun will get you into trouble in the first place.

If A * B is less than C you shouldn't carry a gun around. Spoiler alert: C is definitely greater than A * B.

You made a statement: Turns out the type of person who is paranoid enough to think they need a gun also tend to end up having itchy trigger fingers.
You want that statement to stand without examination. Easy enough to see, given you characterize a question directed at that statement as "irrelevant".

You answer the question examining your statement, and then maybe we can discuss whatever quaint notions you might have about odds and such.

 

[Rucker61]

Your question is irrelevant. The goal is to reduce violent crime.

So what we need to determine is:
A = what are the odds that you will be a victim of a violent crime.
B = what are the odds that having a gun would save you
C = what are the odds that the gun will get you into trouble in the first place.

If A * B is less than C you shouldn't carry a gun around. Spoiler alert: C is definitely greater than A * B.

This is your primary crime refuction effort?

If it's dangerous enough to need more gun control, you can't tell me it's not dangerous enough to carry a gun.

 

[RF667799]

If you are the victim of a violent crime, what are the odds the criminal will have used a motor vehicle to position himself in anticipation of his crime?

Disarmed and Afoot, sez me.

 

[soylentgreen]

The theory here is that people will be less likely to commit a violent crime if they know there's a good chance that they could end up dead.
But as usual, criminals never really expect to get caught, and generally are too desperate to consider the risks. The result is that harsh punishments and threats of violence do very little to discourage anything.

Would it not also encourage criminals to sneak up on a victim rather than go face to face.

 

[TurtleDude]

Would it not also encourage criminals to sneak up on a victim rather than go face to face.

that's why open carry is not a good idea in most cases