Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Faux Science: Claim that homicides surged under Florida’s “Stand-Your-Ground” law

Faux Science: Claim that homicides surged under Florida’s “Stand-Your-Ground” law

JAMA paper is rich in social agenda but utterly lacking in scientific or public policy merit

The scientific journal JAMA Internal Medicine has published a paper utterly devoid of scientific or public policy merit, fraught with abject error and ignorance, and utterly lacking any arguable purpose other than to deceive gullible readers about the nature and merits of Florida’s Stand-Your-Ground law.

The JAMA study follows another supposedly scientific study by others I have previously debunked:

Published on Monday, Nov. 14, the JAMA paper is entitled: “Evaluating the Impact of Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Self-defense Law on Homicide and Suicide by Firearm: An Interrupted Time Series Study.”

How this paper passed peer review and why it has not already been withdrawn is a question left to the reader.

The three authors of this paper that examines a Florida self-defense law do not claim any expertise whatever in the law, and consequences of their (willful?) ignorance are painfully evident throughout the paper. The absence of a claim to legal expertise is made clear when one looks at departments for which the authors work: “Social Policy and Intervention,” “Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,” and “Biostatistics and Epidemiology.” Law? Yeah, not so much.

That the paper was written not for purposes of scientific advancement or public policy utility but solely to push the authors’ ideological preferences is made apparent by the their statements to the press outside the highly constrained bounds of the paper itself.

One of the authors, Antonio Gasparrini, claims in the UK’s Daily Mail that the study shows how Florida’s Stand-Your-Ground law drives increased murders.

“This study highlights how Stand Your Ground is likely to be a cause of the rise in Florida murders, and provides crucial information which may influence future decision-making that affects wellbeing in the US and abroad,” said co-author Antonio Gasparrini of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

In fact, the paper makes no particular effort whatever to study murders, as explained below.

The paper’s lead author, David Humphreys, is cited in the Wall Street Journal as hoping that “the study would compel officials to review the law and consider whether it should be amended or repealed.” This is a bizarre hope given that his paper is equally consistent with Florida’s Stand-Your-Ground law having been an unmitigated success as it is with a law that ought to be repealed.  As explained below, Humphrey’s hope that “Stand-Your-Ground” be repealed, in the context of his own paper, is entirely consistent with a desire for an increase in the murders, maimings, and rapes of innocent people.

In short, the paper appears to be nothing more than the usual faux “science” anti-self-defense propaganda of the sort that has long ago become familiar to gun owners across America, and which years ago led to Congress appropriately denying taxpayer funds for “scientists” turning out similar “research” tripe in the past.

Collectively the authors make numerous substantive errors, any one of which would gut any claimed scientific or public policy utility of their paper, but in the interests of brevity I will focus on just two.

JAMA Paper Fails to Distinguish Between Homicide and Murder

The paper itself authors claim that the passage of Florida’s Stand-Your-Ground is correlated with an increase in the state’s homicides. Indeed, a one-time spike in homicides did apparently occur in the year immediately following the law’s passage.

To take from this that the law had negative public policy consequences—as implicitly claimed by author Humprey’s in his call for repeal—or that the law has led to an increase in murders—as explicitly claimed by author Gasparrini—is such a high degree of nonsense as to qualify as academic malfeasance.

“Homicide” and “murder” are not synonymous terms. The WSJ notes that the CDC defines “homicide” as “one person causing the death of another with intentional force but not necessarily an intent to kill.” It is important to note that there is nothing about this definition that implies anything unlawful whatever. While it is definitionally true that all murders are homicides, it is not true that all homicides are murder. Indeed, not only are many homicides not murder, many are not merely legally justified but actually a social good.

This is easily illustrated. A rapist who kills his rape victim has (in addition to committing rape) committed a homicide—and it is also true that this homicide is a murder, an unlawful, unjustified killing of another person. In contrast, should the rape victim manage to foil her rapist by killing him, she has also committed a homicide—but her homicide is a justified killing in self-defense, not an unlawful murder. Both killings are homicides, but the former is murder and the latter is not.

When the authors of this “scientific” paper thus claim to have found that Florida’s Stand-Your-Ground law is linked to an increase in “homicides,” they have failed to find anything of either scientific or public policy utility whatever. Their research tells us absolutely nothing about what portion of these homicides are unlawful murders and which are legally justified killings.

To put it another way, for all anyone can tell from this paper every single one of the purportedly “Stand-Your-Ground” homicides was a lawful killing of a criminal predator who would otherwise have been successful in murdering, maiming, or raping an innocent victim. In other words, for all the authors’ claims that Stand-Your-Ground has led to an increase in unlawful violence it is equally as likely that the law has led to a decrease in unlawful violence.

JAMA Authors Fail To Understand “Stand-Your-Ground” as Law

A second major error evident in the paper is the author’s apparent ignorance of Stand-Your-Ground as law. They helpfully provide a table listing 23 of the 50 American states has being “Stand-Your-Ground” states. By the only useful definition of Stand-Your-Ground, however—that is, that a defender has no legal duty to attempt a safe retreat before acting in self-defense—there are in fact 35 Stand-Your-Ground states. In fact, only 15 states impose a legal duty to retreat before acting in self-defense.

Further, the authors claim to use as a control a set of four American states that do generally impose a legal duty to retreat. In fact, only three of the chosen states generally impose such a legal duty. The fourth “control” state, Virginia, imposes a legal duty to retreat only if the defender “contributed to the affray”—in other words, only if the defender is not a genuinely innocent victim of a criminal attack. Every state in the country, however, requires that an aggressor in a fight must retreat from the confrontation before they can claim self-defense for their use of defensive force. The author’s choice of Virginia as a contrast to Florida thus exposes both their misunderstanding of Virginia law specifically and the legal constraints imposed on claiming self-defense broadly.

Hey, Where Did the Paper Go?

As I mentioned earlier, the paper is rife with additional errors, but I haven’t time to go through them all.

As a final observation, however, I note that this “science” paper was freely available in its full-text entirety in the days immediately following its publication, at no cost. That same link that led to the full-text paper, however, now provides only a summary and abstract of the paper. If you’d like to read the paper in its entirety, and don’t already have a qualifying subscription in place, you are now asked to pay $30 for the privilege of having access to the paper for a mere 24 hours.

Transparency: It’s what’s for breakfast.

–-Andrew

 


Andrew F. Branca is an attorney and the author of The Law of Self Defense, 3rd Edition.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

One need only go back to the 1980’s editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine that praised the Washington, DC handgun ban. They extolled the virtue of the law that even before implemented had reduced the death rate. That while later on as death rates soared, it just meant that as more died, even more lives were being saved. The rate of death was not corrected for population. If this were a new wonder vaccine than anyone claiming these points would be seriously scolded for non-science. Politics prolonged the AIDs epidemic. Political medicine is dangerous quackery. Liberty, like good health, once lost is hard to regain.

it is not true that not all homicides are murder

Too many nots there?

Five classes of homicide:

1. Criminal
2. Negligent
3. Accidental
4. Justifiable
5. Commendable

Note: Working definitions, not legal ones.

Just for fun, I grabbed Florida’s murder rate by year from here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRalpha

And found that from 1996-2004, the murder rate averaged 5.98 / 100k.
While from 2006-2015, the murder rate averaged 5.62 / 100k.

I’m not seeing a 24.4% increase — that would look like 7.5 / 100k (a rate only reached in 1996, in the data I could find, nine years before SYG).

My favorite part of the abstract: “Both rates had an underlying trend of 0.1% decrease per month. After accounting for underlying trends, these results estimate that after the law took effect there was an abrupt and sustained increase…”

Do you see what they did there? *facepalm*

Even JAMA has been corrupted.

JAMA is NOT a scientific journal, it is a political journal. The American Medical Association is not a scientific body, it’s a political organization which claims to speak for medicine. It doesn’t. There’s a reason more physicians are leaving the AMA.

I could never stomach their politics, which is why I’m not a member.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to vinnymeyer. | November 28, 2016 at 7:13 pm

    Also, even at their best in modern history they have never represented more than 1/3 of physicians.

    I was a nurse for a doc who would take great pleasure in burning his “invitation” to join every year, lol.

A 9mm will cure both an attitude problem and the common cold.

@AB – thanks again for the take down. Read it when you posted it last week, and there were a couple of hard core anti-gun nuts who questioned how you could be opining on a medical matter, or some such. Never really addressing the fundamental problem that the authors, by failing to distinguish between criminal and justified homicides, failed miserably in their intended objective. You were pretty restrained in your responses, much less than I would have been. Wanted to comment, but was using some blogging interface that I refuse to use (Facebook?) on philosophic grounds.

Also, how did they handle suicides? I would think that suicides (killing of self) would also be a formal subset of homicides (killing of man). You see this a lot, with those trying to inflate the death toll supposedly caused by firearms – including suicides in those killed by guns.

    clintack in reply to Bruce Hayden. | November 28, 2016 at 8:14 am

    Bruce — from the abstract, they were using suicide as a control. That is, they saw homicides “increase” (over a linearly falling “predicted” rate) where suicides did not increase.

    This isn’t the usual crap like, “You’re more likely to be killed by your own gun…”

    It’s more like the hockey stick version of crap. (If I’m correctly understanding the abstract.)

      True. Anything can be implied when comparing a rate to “predicted” trends. There’s no control or accountability over what is “predicted”; anything can be stated, and that becomes the baseline no matter how unlikely or ridiculous it might be.

      Here’s a completely crazy example: I predict I will win the next seven Powerball jackpots, individually. (read: I won’t have to share the monies with other winners.)

      If (when) I don’t win all seven of them, I can write a paper statistically proving that the people running Powerball are corrupt, systematically preventing my wins. They must be cheating. It’s the only logical conclusion; it was “predicted” I’d win all seven of the next seven — that’s the given baseline — so how else can winning zero be explained?

      That the prediction is nearly or completely impossible needs never factor into the analysis.

      out of curiosity how did the adjust for population growth, and other factors affecting suicides??

    Define “irony”: Lambasting a lawyer for commentating on a medical journal’s paper about a law — written by physicians with no training in the law — because the lawyer has no training in medicine.

    Yep. That about sums it up. 🙂

A democrat political arm like JAMA lie? Say it ain’t so! Populated by the same type of ‘scientists’ that insist climate change is a real thing and man is causing it.

We all have pour price. But a lousy paycheck is well under mine, personally. As someone who considered what it would take to carry democrat water, mine would be on the order of several millions. Personally and tax-free.

Excellent article, Andrew. Cheers and beers your way for your analysis. 🙂 🙂

Over at The Peoples Cube they are fighting the real problems faced by globalists.

http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/anthropogenic-continental-drift-an-incoherent-truth-t1668.html

* SHRUG* .. I barely passed my required stat classes on my way to a BS/Soc out of [email protected] but I would be willing to wager the years they used for their study likely fell in range of years that homicides in US was in a 20 – 25 year decline … Except in Fla I guess

amatuerwrangler | November 28, 2016 at 7:43 pm

Why Florida? Maybe Illinois has some kind of SYG/no duty to retreat provisions. They may have thought that since Chicago has those strong gun control laws that there would not be enough events to form a decent sample… here are some stats:

http://heyjackass.com/

I think it Lancet the British version of jama that attributed 660k deaths for the first year of the war in Iraq

Could it be that the authors do not distinguish murder from homicide because they don’t care to distinguish? Is it possible that they believe any killing is just as bad as any other killing? In their liberal minds it doesn’t matter who dies; the aggressor or the attacked. Of course if the rapist was not going to kill you after the rape, there would be no homicide. But if the rape victim kills the aggressor during the attack, there is a homicide. I think the authors would be happier for the rapist to live.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Allyn. | December 11, 2016 at 3:15 pm

    You are probably right in some respects, they see all killing as murder, but that delusion is usually tied to their overall delusion that “if we just got rid of guns we would have world peace” or some other such delusional nonsense thought process.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend