Time to revisit the 2nd Amendment?

[Jenksismyhero]

http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-rights/2013/...ach-year-rifles

 

FBI: MORE PEOPLE KILLED WITH HAMMERS, CLUBS EACH YEAR THAN RIFLES

 

By AWR HAWKINS, Breitbart.com

 

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

 

This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.

 

However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.

 

Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.

And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.

 

For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

 

While the FBI makes is clear that some of the "murder by rifle" numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.

 

Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.

 

[StrangeSox]

sweet, then let's all get on with a handgun ban

[farmteam]

I think Duke's right and we're all just living in the matrix.

 

I'm totally all right with it as long as we get to reenact that badass scene in the first one where Neo and Trinity shoot up the lobby. StrangeSox, you can be Neo, and SS2K5 you can be Trinity...don't deny it, you two, you know you look good in tight leather.

[Balta1701]

While I'm at it, slightly different topic, but still guns...the old SYG law.

In 2005, Florida became the first of nearly two-dozen states to pass a "stand your ground" law that removed the requirement to retreat. If you felt at risk of harm in a park or on the street, you could use lethal force to defend yourself. The shooting of unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., drew national attention to these laws.

 

Now, researchers who've studied the effect of the laws have found that states with a stand your ground law have more homicides than states without such laws.

 

"These laws lower the cost of using lethal force," says Mark Hoekstra, an economist with Texas A&M University who examined stand your ground laws. "Our study finds that, as a result, you get more of it."

 

...

Hoekstra recently decided to analyze national crime statistics to see what happens in states that pass stand your ground laws. He found the laws are having a measurable effect on the homicide rate.

 

"Our study finds that, that homicides go up by 7 to 9 percent in states that pass the laws, relative to states that didn't pass the laws over the same time period," he says.

 

As to whether the laws reduce crime — by creating a deterrence for criminals — he says, "we find no evidence of any deterrence effect over that same time period."

 

Hoekstra obtained this result by comparing the homicide rate in states before and after they passed the laws. He also compared states with the laws to states without the laws.

 

"We find that there are 500 to 700 more homicides per year across the 23 states as a result of the laws," he said. There are about 14,000 homicides annually in the United States as a whole.

This of course just repeats a number of studies done on these laws previously which found the same result. When people are armed on the streets, there's no large increase in successful self-defenses, but there's a substantial body count from all the other situations the guns get pulled.

[ptatc]

One remarkable thing pt...I think almost everyone here would agree with your sentiment in this post:

 

 

I certainly would also...and I'd be one of the ones called government-lovers by Duke. There's a lot of places, particularly at the state and local levels, where things could be improved by reducing government interference. Take some time and go through the number of licenses that municipalities have for different types of businesses and you've got great examples.

 

My standard tends to be...I want a good reason before I demand government action. Its a cost-benefit calculation in my view. Just to take this case...when the cost of having people armed with assault style rifles is 20 dead kids...and I can't fathom a single benefit other than some vague "You're ready if the US Army comes after you!"...I lean quite strongly towards a strong regulation.

I just don't think that anything with more regulations will make much of a difference. Maybe a magazine size regulation. But honestly, anyone willing to plan and commit mass murder will find a way with illegal weapons or home made bombs.

[StrangeSox]

I think Duke's right and we're all just living in the matrix.

 

I'm totally all right with it as long as we get to reenact that badass scene in the first one where Neo and Trinity shoot up the lobby. StrangeSox, you can be Neo, and SS2K5 you can be Trinity...don't deny it, you two, you know you look good in tight leather.

 

 

You know, when I first saw the Matrix, I thought Cypher was just disillusioned, driven mad perhaps, by the poverty and danger of living aboard the Nebuchadnezzar, and thus, driven to murder, but seeing some Matrix posts on my dash brought something back.

 

What was it that Cypher couldn’t stand, exactly? Oh, I know, he says it’s the coldness of the ship, the life of being constantly on the run, it’s eating the same goddamn goop every day…

 

But who does Cypher seek help from and what’s he want?

 

He wants back in the Matrix. He seeks help from the white, male, middle-aged looking Smith.

 

The Matrix being what it is, and the programming being what it is, you don’t come out of it without encountering and being affected by the things within the program - racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism.

 

So what is it Cypher wants?

 

He wants to go back to his life of privilege. I got that the first time, long before I grew up and actually started paying attention.

 

Cypher isn’t just a Judas or a betrayer to the good cause.

 

Cypher is an Ally ™.

 

He got out of the Matrix, for what? Who? Trinity? So he wanted affection? Then he wanted cookies for being a Good Person ™?

 

And when he didn’t get his cookies, what did he do? He betrayed the crew of the Nebuchadnezzar, resulting in Mouse’s death. He killed Switch (was she albino? Was she just meant to look that way?) and Apoc (Latin@?), got Morpheus imprisoned, killed Dozer, and tried to kill Tank (and hmm, all three of these being Black people).

 

When I think about it, I have to wonder if this is a point the Wachowskis meant to make:

 

The danger of having privileged folk as Allies (TM or otherwise).

 

I bet POC watching the Matrix saw this coming a mile away the first time they saw the film. Of course, whites who watch would ‘get’ that Cypher was a betrayer. But would they ‘get’ the potential for the point I just made, unless they had already done some serious research, listening, thinking, and actually trying not to be a Cypher?

 

Would they get it that if they actually want to help fix the world, they need to fix themselves, and Don’t Be A Cypher?

 

What’s most interesting about this is that Neo was originally conceived as black - you can see this by the pre-casting storyboards - and in fact it’s been hinted on occasion that Keanu (who is of polynesian descent) - was choice motivated by studio pressure. It’s also interesting that The Matrix trilogy is the only peice of filmaking I can call to mind with a reverse case of black guy dies first in that every single POC character save one (and THAT was due to the actor pulling out) survives, and 90% of the white characters die.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

While I'm at it, slightly different topic, but still guns...the old SYG law.

This of course just repeats a number of studies done on these laws previously which found the same result. When people are armed on the streets, there's no large increase in successful self-defenses, but there's a substantial body count from all the other situations the guns get pulled.

 

If I remember right, I looked at those studies the first time you posted that and none of them stood for the fact that 7-9% more VICTIMS die, but rather deaths generally increased 7-9%. If that's the case and the majority of that increase is the criminals dying, who cares?

[StrangeSox]

criminals don't deserve extra-judicial deaths (death period imo but w/e), but the study looked at justifiable homicide rates as well to balance that out. further in the NPR story:

 

The fact that more people are being killed doesn't automatically mean the law isn't working. Hoekstra says there are at least three possible explanations.

 

"It could be that these are self-defense killings," he said. "On the other hand, the increase could be driven by an escalation of violence by criminals. Or it could be an escalation of violence in otherwise nonviolent situations."

 

But which is it?

 

Hoekstra checked to see whether police were listing more cases as "justifiable homicides" in states that passed stand your ground laws. If there were more self-defense killings, this number should have gone up. He also examined whether more criminals were showing up armed.

 

In both cases, he found nothing. There were small increases in both numbers, but it was hard to tell whether there was really any difference.

 

So if the numbers on justifiable homicide and criminals using lethal force don't explain the rise in homicide, what's causing the increase?

 

"One possibility for the increase in homicide is that perhaps [in cases where] there would have been a fistfight ... now, because of stand your ground laws, it's possible that those escalate into something much more violent and lethal," says Hoekstra.

[Balta1701]

If I remember right, I looked at those studies the first time you posted that and none of them stood for the fact that 7-9% more VICTIMS die, but rather deaths generally increased 7-9%. If that's the case and the majority of that increase is the criminals dying, who cares?

The problem is...there's no net increase in "justified homicides" in those same states. If it was just "Criminals" dying, then you'd see a dramatic surge in justifiable homicides; that death toll is more than the total number in the country.

 

What you see instead is an increase in homicide with very little increase in justifiable ones. That means it's not just criminals dying.

 

It means that 1 of 2 things is happening. Either you have the case where a crime is being committed and the law being passed makes the victim of that crime more likely to die, or you have the case where there is an altercation and the law being passed makes someone more likely to pull a gun and shoot the other, like the little Caesar's case where a fight over how slow the pizza was ended up with someone being shot.

 

Those cases are the norm. The vigilante fantasy is the exception. It is staring you in the face in this data, and every way you look at it, you see the same result.

[Jenksismyhero]

criminals don't deserve extra-judicial deaths (death period imo but w/e), but the study looked at justifiable homicide rates as well to balance that out. further in the NPR story:

 

We'll agree to disagree on the first part of that response, but with regards to the study that's basically a "we don't know" answer.

[Balta1701]

We'll agree to disagree on the first part of that response, but with regards to the study that's basically a "we don't know" answer.

No it's not. It's a "We can rule out actual self defense" but the other causes stand.

[Jenksismyhero]

The problem is...there's no net increase in "justified homicides" in those same states. If it was just "Criminals" dying, then you'd see a dramatic surge in justifiable homicides; that death toll is more than the total number in the country.

 

What you see instead is an increase in homicide with very little increase in justifiable ones. That means it's not just criminals dying.

 

It means that 1 of 2 things is happening. Either you have the case where a crime is being committed and the law being passed makes the victim of that crime more likely to die, or you have the case where there is an altercation and the law being passed makes someone more likely to pull a gun and shoot the other, like the little Caesar's case where a fight over how slow the pizza was ended up with someone being shot.

 

Those cases are the norm. The vigilante fantasy is the exception. It is staring you in the face in this data, and every way you look at it, you see the same result.

 

That could be an explanation, and another is the way police officers classify the deaths. How you would classify the Martin situation would differ from me, for example. Either way, you can't make the conclusion that SYG laws = you're going to die if you get into an altercation.

[StrangeSox]

We'll agree to disagree on the first part of that response, but with regards to the study that's basically a "we don't know" answer.

 

That's what I thought when I first heard it on the radio yesterday, but after re-reading it I see that they're saying something else. That part I quoted started off by positing several different potential causes, but they ultimately ruled the others out. Criminals weren't bringing more guns/becoming more violent themselves and there wasn't an uptick in justifiable homicides. SYG seems to have increased the likelihood of violence/death overall but without a corresponding increase in legitimate cases of self-defense, meaning there's more unjustified vigilantism going on.

[Balta1701]

That could be an explanation, and another is the way police officers classify the deaths. How you would classify the Martin situation would differ from me, for example. Either way, you can't make the conclusion that SYG laws = you're going to die if you get into an altercation.

That one is actually going to be easy. If he wins his "Self-defense hearing", it will be classified under the federal statistics as a justifiable homicide which would have been counted as such. If he goes to jail, then it will not be.

[Jenksismyhero]

That one is actually going to be easy. If he wins his "Self-defense hearing", it will be classified under the federal statistics as a justifiable homicide which would have been counted as such. If he goes to jail, then it will not be.

 

Which would be interesting, but it appears your study looked at how police classified the shootings, not the eventual trier of fact at a trial.

[Balta1701]

Which would be interesting, but it appears your study looked at how police classified the shootings, not the eventual trier of fact at a trial.

If the police lose such a case, then it would be listed as a justified homicide (that's why you don't use data for the current year). However, if the person settled in exchange for some jail time, it would not be listed as a justified homicide...because the person was convicted of a crime and went to jail.

[Jenksismyhero]

And really I don't see how that increase jives with concealed carry laws. Why wouldn't homicides in concealed carry states, versus Illinois for example, be higher? It's the availability of the gun in the vigilante scenario, not the availability of a defense. People don't sit there and ponder whether they can get away with shooting someone to death in the middle of an altercation. They don't think "hey, this is a close call, maybe I can get away with it!" They do the shooting and then try to use the SYG law as a defense, just like they would try to use any potentially available defense at their trial. I don't buy that having SYG on the books makes people more likely to shoot someone else. There's another explanation out there that just hasn't been found.

[StrangeSox]

Which would be interesting, but it appears your study looked at how police classified the shootings, not the eventual trier of fact at a trial.

 

here is the actual study:

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

 

but you'd need for the police classifications to be systematically biased one way or the other for that to matter. If, on the whole, the number of murders falsely categorized as justified homicides is roughly equal to the number of justified homicides falsely categorized as murder, then there's no problem. Do we have a reason to believe that the police would, on the whole, bias their classifications one way or another? That bias need not be conscience, but I don't know of a good reason to presume it exists and is strong enough to influence the results.

[StrangeSox]

And really I don't see how that increase jives with concealed carry laws. Why wouldn't homicides in concealed carry states, versus Illinois for example, be higher? It's the availability of the gun in the vigilante scenario, not the availability of a defense. People don't sit there and ponder whether they can get away with shooting someone to death in the middle of an altercation. They don't think "hey, this is a close call, maybe I can get away with it!" They do the shooting and then try to use the SYG law as a defense, just like they would try to use any potentially available defense at their trial. I don't buy that having SYG on the books makes people more likely to shoot someone else. There's another explanation out there that just hasn't been found.

 

It can adjust social attitudes and those who carry a gun on a broader level than specifically considering something in the heat of the moment. Maybe you carry more frequently, maybe you feel more confident in confronting someone (Treyvon, Jordan Davis) with your weapon because you believe, in the back of your mind, that the law is on your side.

 

Why are you so sure that there's another explanation that hasn't been found? There could be, of course, but I see no good non-ideological reason for assuming that there must be.

[Jenksismyhero]

If the police lose such a case, then it would be listed as a justified homicide (that's why you don't use data for the current year). However, if the person settled in exchange for some jail time, it would not be listed as a justified homicide...because the person was convicted of a crime and went to jail.

 

Did you look at the original study? What does he mean by "police statistics?" Just because the City of Chicago classifies a shooting as a homicide doesn't mean later on at trial that can't become a justifiable homicide. For all we know he's using what police initially think of a case, not the end result.

[Balta1701]

And really I don't see how that increase jives with concealed carry laws. Why wouldn't homicides in concealed carry states, versus Illinois for example, be higher? It's the availability of the gun in the vigilante scenario, not the availability of a defense. People don't sit there and ponder whether they can get away with shooting someone to death in the middle of an altercation. They don't think "hey, this is a close call, maybe I can get away with it!" They do the shooting and then try to use the SYG law as a defense, just like they would try to use any potentially available defense at their trial. I don't buy that having SYG on the books makes people more likely to shoot someone else. There's another explanation out there that just hasn't been found.

The simple fact is, your assessment of people's psychology simply doesn't agree with the data. The law creates a situation where people are more likely to consider pulling and using a weapon. It pours out every time anyone looks at this data.

[Jake]

I just don't think that anything with more regulations will make much of a difference. Maybe a magazine size regulation. But honestly, anyone willing to plan and commit mass murder will find a way with illegal weapons or home made bombs.

 

We keep saying that, but then people commit mass murders with weapons acquired legally or easily enough that those purchases/acquisitions could have/should have been restricted. Many (not all) mass murderers do so with some sense of impulse and may not be able to carry out plans that are too elaborate. These are also outsiders, generally, so a kid who plays video games in his basement and has Asperger's probably doesn't know how to get in touch with illegal gun/bomb dealers and makers.

[StrangeSox]

Did you look at the original study? What does he mean by "police statistics?" Just because the City of Chicago classifies a shooting as a homicide doesn't mean later on at trial that can't become a justifiable homicide. For all we know he's using what police initially think of a case, not the end result.

 

The original study, linked in both Balta's article and by me above, states that they use FBI UCR data.

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime...ed-offense-data

[Jenksismyhero]

here is the actual study:

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

 

but you'd need for the police classifications to be systematically biased one way or the other for that to matter. If, on the whole, the number of murders falsely categorized as justified homicides is roughly equal to the number of justified homicides falsely categorized as murder, then there's no problem. Do we have a reason to believe that the police would, on the whole, bias their classifications one way or another? That bias need not be conscience, but I don't know of a good reason to presume it exists and is strong enough to influence the results.

 

Well since SYG is a defense to homicide the assumption in the vast majority of cases is going to be homicide, with a jury deciding if it was justified or not later on. So yes, I could see those numbers being skewed that way.

[Jenksismyhero]

The simple fact is, your assessment of people's psychology simply doesn't agree with the data. The law creates a situation where people are more likely to consider pulling and using a weapon. It pours out every time anyone looks at this data.

 

That's not what the study says. It says in those states with those laws there's an uptick in homicides. It doesn't conclude that SYG law is THE cause of that uptick.