Posted on 01/06/2017 4:23:20 AM PST by rarestia
The JAMA paper was published back in November 2016; why is Bay News 9 breathlessly telling us about it now?
In any case, Andrew Branca published an excellent refutation over at Legal Insurrection, also in November:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/11/faux-science-claim-that-homicides-surged-under-floridas-stand-your-ground-law/
I’m genuinely curious if they included the Pulse nightclub attack in their statistics.
Don';t go there - it upsets their meme when you discover that a lot of those homicides were the bad guys instead of the good guys....the bad guys have been incentivized to commit murder and mayhem or the "homicides" would have fallen.
Proves that SYG is working as intended
If you note at the end of the LI article (thank you for posting that, BTW), he states that while the JAMA article was initially available free-of-charge, they’ve now only made the abstract available and require $30 for access to the article.
I’m sure some idiot at BN9 saw the opportunity and ran with it.
This report satisfies the intensely bureaucratic impulse to treat people as interchangeable units, equating the guilty with the innocent.
this is ridiculous.
it’s fantastic the guilty die.
there is a thing called Justice, you know...
The abstract does not provide the definition of “homicide” in the Methods section, be it by the researchers themselves or by the database(s) they queried.
It is a purposefully headline grabbing abstract, which will have little follow-up unless someone pulls the paper has a look. Sorry, I refuse to pay for the full text of their drivel.
JAMA, NEJM, Nature, Lancet, Science etc all very political...
Yes, I agree that JAMA (and NEJM, and the Annals) are sold-out anti-gun fanatics, and I would closely examine any claims of this nature they published.
However.
I’ve been questioning the premises of SYG since I first heard about it, from a traditionalist, common law viewpoint. The common law presupposes the right of self-defense, including the proper use of deadly force.
But the common law also imposes on all people a duty to, when possible, stay out of trouble. Inside of a dwelling or common house, this is called “retreat to the wall”. You don’t need to leave, you don’t need to run away, but if backing up avoids deadly force, well, that’s been the common law for 1000 years.
When I lived in Brooklyn, everybody practiced common sense street crossing. This sensible practice clarified for me what may be wrong with SYG as written.
If you wouldn’t walk into a group of savages on the street unarmed, you shouldn’t do it armed, either.
What ever happened to evidence based medicine?
Where is the double blind study on this issue, if they can’t do it, then they should shut up.
JAMA is making me lose confidence in the doctor profession.
JAMA - still a propaganda arm for the globalist progressive victim disarmament movement (there are times I’m happier being a DO, but the AOA is still 4-square behind Obamacare - follow the money) - opines on “homicides” allegedly related to a politically incorrect - yet enormously popular - law called “stand your ground” a budding, flourishing offshoot of what is known as “castle doctrine”, “apprehended danger” and “the reasonable man theory” among other legalistic terms of art.
What the authors CAREFULLY avoid discussing or lending any conjecture or support to is
1- were these homicides justifiable?
2 - how many victims of assault, rape, robbery, murder are alive NOW because they “stood their ground”?
3 - how many prison cells are empty because someone “stood their ground” (reducing societal cost in housing, feeding, “rehabilitating” violent criminals and lessening the all-too-frequent recidivism rate of those criminals once released)?
But casual observance brings to notice how they sound the dog whistle polling group-tested buzzwords of “gun violence research is underfunded “ - meaning what it always means. CDC was (IS) too political, perpetually coming down on the side of victim disarmament in how they manipulated the data until congress defunded their “gun violence research” and told them quite bluntly, stick to medicine. Firearms use is NOT a “medical issue.”
I’ll wait for the experts like John Lott and Gary Kleck to do the rebuttal, but the WSM (Waste Stream Media) will bury it as they do ALL dissenting opinions from refuseniks.
I know dozens of men and women who carry concealed daily, many of them family. I don't know a single one of them that would do what you suggest. We carry to protect ourselves from harm, not to incite others to try to harm us. That's known as a death wish or bloodlust where I come from.
Why Judge? Cause he needed killin'.
“All deaths are homicides.”
You might want to qualify that. Deaths can also be accidental, suicide, etc.
These database analysis “Cochrane Reviews” are the source for many papers published in top-tier journals. Lots of policy is derived from it. And litigation. It filters in through specialty organizations, best practices and paradigms and limits, then shows up in a policy paper from the organization, then into practice. If the doc did not follow the practices as described by their specialty organization, then no guberment reimbursement for payment of care. Viola!
Soon doctors can be replaced by flow charts of signs, symptoms, delimiters. No art or practice will be needed.
I think there were two cases in Florida in which a person tried to claim stand your ground and the court ruled otherwise.
see for Cochrane Review http://www.cochrane.org/
Medical Doctors use a higher standard than regular scientific journals.
regular scientific journals can use statistics to predict what the results are and to remove other factors statistically.
evidence based means you actually have to do double blind studies and actually control the inputs to validate the actual result over a period of years. This includes placebo controls.
Otherwise, it doesn’t belong in a medical journal or being promoted by a medical doctor association.
Liars Figure
The AMA is anti gun
Well, neither do I, but just read upthread.
If the view that SYG is a means to deputize all CCW to rid Florida of scumbags is that popular, then the law is going to cause lots of problems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.