This is a discussion on Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Castle Doctrine Laws Increase Homicide within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; The title says it all. Here's a link to the original paper (.pdf) http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf Personally, I think these studies miss the point. Regardless of what ...
Array
The title says it all. Here's a link to the original paper (.pdf) http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf
Personally, I think these studies miss the point. Regardless of what aggregate statistics show about effect on crime rates, individuals have the right to protect themselves and their family however they best see fit.
Array
Driving cars increases vehicular homicide. Revoke the right of travel. Eating food increases obesity related deaths. Ban that too.
Life guarantees a 100% death rate. Congress needs to take action.
You already made the only serious statement that needs to be made. Spot on.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." -Obligatory Founding Father Quote
One significant thing this study does not appear to account for is the changing economy. They assert that because homocides went up from 2005 to 2010 compared to 2000 to 2005, that it indicates the castle laws were the cause. There are other factors such as a significantly worse economy that may well have resulted in more home invasion crimes in the 2005-2010 time period compared to 2000-2005. Given the worsened economy, more severe unemployment/underemployment, it could be that (conjecture here) there are FEWER homocides per home invasion/carjacking in the 2005-2010 period than in the 2000-2005 period.
In general, from the study, I am not convinced they controlled for all the significant variables properly and I doubt that their conclusions are all that reliable.
From the conclusion part of the article.
Seems to differ a bit from their title.We find suggestive but inconclusive evidence that these laws increase justifiable homicide by private citizens.
They also note that they really don't have any idea why homocides in general are up in castle doctrine states - could be this, could be that - who knows?
The additional homicides induced by castle doctrine could be due to victims practicing self-defense under the terms of the new law, an increased propensity by criminals to use lethal force when committing crimes or encountering resistance, the escalation of other conflicts, or some combination of the above.
It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson
You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.
ksholder - excellent observation. You get a gold star for the day.
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is."
- Yogi Berra
Array
Good thing we have the hypereducated to tell us how things really are. Immersion in an ocean of test results and statistics in some think tank is a much more accurate way to determine how people ought to react in a given circumstance. Real life in a real world is irrelevant.
I liked the equation that was stolen from Lawrence-Livermore's R&D department.
Array
I have to agree with Ksholder,a law may help deter crime but will only prevent it until someone is willing to accept the risk/punishment.As the economy becomes worse with more people out of work and unable to feed themselves or their families,the same previous law abiding people as they become more desperate will resort to stealing etc. to survive,it's only the will to survive and it trumps all laws
"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
--Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .
Array
Too many other variables were not included.
I wonder if they had a pro gun and pro self defense person do the peer review.
As has already been mentioned Castle law is for protecting the homeowner and victim if there is an increase in homicides so be it. I am not sure they subtracted the justifiable homicides, they shouldn't count.
That was very poorly written by someone with poor English.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My head is spinning. After 40 + years of reading stuff similar to this (but in a different field), my poor old brain
gave up. Honestly, I can't put my finger on it, but something seems off. It makes sense that there are only
a relatively small number of justifiable homicides per year; it doesn't make sense that having Castle Doctrine
would increase murder rates as dramatically as they are saying it does. I can't put my finger on precisely
where they are going wrong, and lack the patience to really dig into this.
The paper is full of statistical jargon, and that is not unusual, and I'll assume they crunched the numbers well; but in the end a result has to make logical sense as well as be mathematically correct. Maybe I'm missing something
but I can not think of a single reason why there would be
more violent crime as a result introducing Castle Doctrine EXCEPT that perhaps in such states there is greater
availability of weapons in general amongst the criminally inclined. But these authors seem to be saying that it is
Castle Doctrine which associates with higher crime rates, and that just doesn't make sense.
Added later-- one problem I think they have introduced to their analysis is that they didn't confine the comparisons
to violence by BGs during home invasions in Castle Doctrine v non-Castle Doctrine states. They lumped together all manner of crime which happens outside the home; a place where Castle Doctrine is irrelevant. They also confused (as many do) SYG with Castle Doctrine; notably early on where they make a reference to the T-Z affair in FL.
Maybe I missed seeing something. It was stated this is a peer reviewed manuscript. I didn't see a complete citation anywhere, or did I miss it.
Having been one, I can attest that Graduate Students, while their intentions may be as pure as the driven snow, are often too willing to spend untold hours and vast resources to become masters of the otherwise obvious.
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is."
- Yogi Berra
I didn't get that impression. Rather it is written in a very highly stylized fashion which is dictated by things such as the journal's requiredOriginally Posted by Yoda
style, the need to present mathematical statistics in particular ways, and the need to conform the presentation to
the format the journal requires. That's what this sort of paper typically is like. They aren't intended for casual reading.
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
John Adams. Second President of the United States.
True but the problem this manuscript presents is that the conclusion is NOT what one would think to be obvious in an
intuitive way. So then the question becomes whether the counter intuitive conclusions are valid, or are they invalid conclusions
due to some logic error or method error. And if so, where is the error.
It is very counter intuitive that Castle Doctrine would in anyway cause serious increases in violent crime rates. There is
no logical connection between the two unless you look only at home invasions, which I think they did not.
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
John Adams. Second President of the United States.
Array
Their probably right. Bag guy breaks into house,threatens family with violence,sheepdog comes out,shoots bad guy,homicide.
Array
After actually reading the studies that resulted in statistics like "gun in home ups the chances of dying by 93x" and "3k children are killed by guns every year", I've concluded the only thing that can be reliably concluded is that the people doing such studies and "journals" that publish them all need to re-take their intro to stats classes and a few classes in common sense as well. Justified homicides will go up by definition - better than the good guys ending up on the slab instead. They obviously never heard of Kennesee(sp), GA.
Posting Permissions
50Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
