• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

TurtleDude said:
that's why open carry is not a good idea in most cases
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't a criminal in america who is into mugging people would not assume their victim might have a gun. They would be more likely to come from behind and king hit someone.
 
soylentgreen said:
Why wouldn't a criminal in america who is into mugging people would not assume their victim might have a gun. They would be more likely to come from behind and king hit someone.
Click to expand...
Muggers tend to hit people they think cannot hurt them in the first place
 
MrWonka said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why do they have to reduce violent crime to be worthwhile? How about just letting people defend themselves.
 
MrWonka said:
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.
Click to expand...
Stand you ground laws have never been about prevention. They're about punishment or revenge.
 
we're always gonna shoot each other a bunch. it's just who we are.
 
MrWonka said:
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.
Click to expand...

They don't indicate anything. This "analysis" is nothing but a political stunt:

stand your ground.jpg


Note that what they are counting is the number of homicides. They are intentional conflating homicide with murder. Here is the definition of homicide:

Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense.
Click to expand...

In this "study", the leftist scum PhDs are not differentiating between killing criminals in self-defense and criminals murdering innocent people. Hence a woman shooting and killing a home invader and a criminal murdering a man during a car jacking are both counted equally as homicides.

Again, the whole thing is nothing but a stupid political stunt.
 

Attachments

  • homicide definition.jpg
    homicide definition.jpg
    44.5 KB · Views: 1
Gateman_Wen said:
Stand you ground laws have never been about prevention. They're about punishment or revenge.
Click to expand...
bullshit. that's more of the nonsense we see from the victim disarmament movement
 
aociswundumho said:
They don't indicate anything. This "analysis" is nothing but a political stunt:

View attachment 67376322


Note that what they are counting is the number of homicides. They are intentional conflating homicide with murder. Here is the definition of homicide:



In this "study", the leftist scum PhDs are not differentiating between killing criminals in self-defense and criminals murdering innocent people. Hence a woman shooting and killing a home invader and a criminal murdering a man during a car jacking are both counted equally as homicides.

Again, the whole thing is nothing but a stupid political stunt.
Click to expand...
Why would they not conflate both homicide and murder? Just because a thug brings a gun to a mugging does not mean he can be charged with murder.

The point of how dangerous syg is that it will raise the level of gun deaths that were not intentional. If we just counted those who intentionally chose to kill someone we would be dismissing many of the actual cases where a syg action was committed.
 
soylentgreen said:
Why would they not conflate both homicide and murder?
Click to expand...

Because the killing of violent criminals is good for society, while the murder of innocent people by criminals is bad. If the increase in homicides is due to more violent criminals being shot, then SYG laws are a success.

soylentgreen said:
The point of how dangerous syg is that it will raise the level of gun deaths that were not intentional.
Click to expand...

Do you mean increase accidents while in a confrontation?
 
TurtleDude said:
bullshit. that's more of the nonsense we see from the victim disarmament movement
Click to expand...
Don't be silly. we all know laws don't work for prevention. That's why you're against gun control, right?
 
MrWonka said:
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.
Click to expand...
You make a strong case on why you should not carry a gun and I respect that choice you made.
 
Rich2018 said:
So you've no idea

You just admitted you don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
I was quoting the anti gun control crowd. They say "laws won't stop criminals" all the time. Why is it different in this case?
 
Gateman_Wen said:
I was quoting the anti gun control crowd. They say "laws won't stop criminals" all the time. Why is it different in this case?
Click to expand...

Operative phrase bolded.

You said:
Don't be silly. we all know laws don't work for prevention...
Click to expand...

So now you shift the goal posts and say you just meant "all the time"
Strange how that qualifier never made it into your original post huh ?


Moreover, we all KNOW that no law is 100% effective...and you just posted a dishonest straw-man.
What's your next revelation? Water is wet, the pope's a Catholic ?
 
Rich2018 said:
Operative phrase bolded.

You said:


So now you shift the goal posts and say you just meant "all the time"
Strange how that qualifier never made it into your original post huh ?


Moreover, we all KNOW that no law is 100% effective...and you just posted a dishonest straw-man.
What's your next revelation? Water is wet, the pope's a Catholic ?
Click to expand...
1645659912330.png
 
Rich2018 said:
Nitpicking ?
LOL

You said:


Then when challenged you shifted the goal posts to yes, they do actually work...but not ALL THE TIME.

Try dishonesty on your part !
Click to expand...

Chrissake. I don't agree with his argument, but I understand it better than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom