Replies

Actually, no. That’s not what the study claims.

“In fact, they say the response of criminals to the idea that the victim may be armed is to arm themselves as well, turning what otherwise would have been burglaries and robberies into homicides.”

Not saying I believe in their statistical manipulations; it just helps if we understand what the Left is saying.

Agree with your take on it.
Apparently the belief of the left is that one should sit quietly while being robbed, offering no resistance or defense and thereby avoid having to shoot someone; that if someone dies, it is all the fault of the law abiding victim for daring to defend with force. Idiotic view, but yes that seems to be how they think.

“In fact, they say the response of criminals to the idea that the victim may be armed is to arm themselves as well, turning what otherwise would have been burglaries and robberies into homicides.”

Ah, the logic of unilateral disarmament. By that logic, it would make sense to disarm the police as well, to avoid escalating the situation.

oh, so the criminals are armed

ok

yeah, everyone knows the criminals are armed.

But the left asserts the criminals are armed to defend against the victims????????????????

Ludicrous, ridiculous, depraved. Now criminals have a right to an unarmed victim????????????????

I look forward to an analysis of this study by John Lott. The devil is in the details, and in the definitions.

I expect that John will be looking at this very shortly.

I notice that the study “examines whether aiding self-defense in this way deters crime or, alternatively, escalates violence.” The two are not contradictory or mutually exclusive.

It also helps to point out that the criminals should not have been planning to commit burglaries and robberies in the first place. Had they behaved properly, the situations would not have arisen in the first place. Of course, it could then be said that the burglary and robbery victims should not have been in possession of such property that would tempt those of us who are less fortunate....And on and on and on. It’s a simple matter of redistribution./s

The report only considers justified homicides to be those reported to the FBI under the FBIs extremely limited definition.

From the report:

“While we view the evidence that castle doctrine increases homicides as convincing, we note that one downside of the homicide measure is that it could well include homicides that are justified under the new self-defense law and yet may not meet the strict definition of justifiable homicide. Thus, this increase may not be viewed by everyone as
unambiguously bad. For example, the increase could be driven by individuals protecting themselves from imminent harm by using lethal force.22 On the other hand, the increase could be driven by the escalation of violence in situations that otherwise would not have ended in serious injury for either party.

We address this issue in two ways. First, we focus solely on murder, which
excludes classifications of non-negligent manslaughter that are more likely to be used in self-defense killings that do not meet the strict definition of justifiable homicide. Results are shown in Panel C of Table 5, where all specifications show statistically significant increases of between 6 and 11 percent. In addition, we find suggestive evidence that felony homicide and suspected felony homicide—that is, homicides that were or were suspected to have been committed along with a felony, such as robbery or burglary—are
increased as a result of the laws. 23 These homicides almost certainly represent an escalation of violence by criminals, as opposed to self-defense situations.24 Combined, this suggests that the increase in homicides is unlikely to be entirely due to self-defense.”