Progressives Want Self-Defense to Be Illegal

0
Share

“The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.”
– James Earl Jones

The Second Amendment is only one vote away from extinction. Justice John Paul Stevens said in a minority decision several years back that “there is no indication that the Framers of the [Second] Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.”

The left does not believe we have a constitutional right to defend ourselves and they can always find cases to prove self-defense rules are dangerous. It’s especially easy to do when there are no studies on the issue.

House progressives want to cut government funding for state and local police programs anywhere there are “Stand Your Ground” laws like the Florida statute at the center of the Trayvon Martin shooting case. Reps. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, will send an amendment to a DOJ spending bill next week that would slash funding. [Politico]

It won’t pass but if Republicans lose the House, these laws and the  second amendment will be in trouble.

Much of what was going on in the Trayvon Martin case carried with it an undercurrent of gun control. There is serious opposition to “Stand Your Ground” laws which allow people to use deadly force in cases of self-defense when they believe their life is at risk.

Since the laws have passed, Rep. Dennis Baxley, one of the authors of the law, said that criminal homicides in Florida have gone down. Justifiable homicides, however, have gone up according to some statistics. Those stats are particular to Florida.

Five of the states that enacted “stand your ground” laws during the past decade—Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Montana and West Virginia—reported no significant change in justifiable homicides. In Michigan, which passed its law in 2006, they fell. [WSJ]

There are no legitimate studies on these laws and no proof that any statistic is tied to these laws. Instead of recommending an immediate cessation of all self-defense laws, it needs to be studied. The progressive lawmakers are making suppositions without proof. The statistics are all over the place.

So we can’t defend ourselves, our states have no rights, and the law needs to be eliminated without any verifiable research. Those are our progressives for you.

WSJ…The data on justifiable homicides and their relationship to “stand your ground” laws hasn’t been rigorously studied, according to criminal scientists, and it leaves some questions unanswered. For instance, does a rise in justifiable homicides reflect killings that otherwise wouldn’t have happened? Or does it reflect the fact that more killings might naturally fall into the “justifiable” category, if a new law broadens that category?

The statistics don’t capture why a killer felt threatened, or whether the victim was armed. And by definition, the dead man—and justifiable-homicide victims are almost exclusively male, unlike nonjustifiable homicides—isn’t around to testify.

Still, the numbers provide a rich snapshot of justifiable-homicide characteristics over the 11-year period:

• In about 60% of justifiable-homicide cases in which the relationship between victim and killer was known, the pair were strangers. This differs sharply from nonjustifiable cases, where more than three-fourths of victims knew their killers.

• Firearms were used in more than 80% of justifiable cases. (In seven cases, the victims were asphyxiated or strangled.) In nonjustifiable cases, guns were used about 65% of the time.

• The average age of victims in justifiable cases was 30; in nonjustifiable cases, the average was 32. By either yardstick, the February killing of 17-year-old Mr. Martin was an outlier.

The death of Mr. Martin, a black teen, is driving a widespread debate about the role of race. The nationwide data show that in three-quarters or more of all killings, “justifiable” or otherwise, the killer and victim were of the same race. Proportionally, blacks are more often the victims of homicide.

A split appeared in the data when the race of killer and victim differed. Among all homicides, when races differed, the victim was more often white. By contrast, in justifiable-homicide cases, when the races differed, the opposite was true: The victim was more often black…Read more…

If you are for the second amendment, watch this. If you are against the second amendment, definitely watch this –

 

Share