A “new report” from Everytown for Gun Safety is making the same old arguments against “Stand Your Ground” (SYG) laws in various states, asserting that such laws are “associated with higher homicide rates” and “increased racial disparities in legal outcomes,” according to a report in the Ohio Capital Journal.
Such statutes have changed the legal landscape in states where they have been enacted, removing a “duty to retreat” prior to using force in self-defense. According to the Capital Journal report, “At least 35 states have stand-your-ground statutes or laws that expand the castle doctrine to apply beyond the home, according to a separate analysis by the RAND Corporation.”
And what did the Rand study say?
- “Self-defense has long been available as a criminal defense for fatal and nonfatal confrontations. Traditionally, this defense imposes a duty to retreat before using force if safe retreat is available. Castle doctrineremoves the duty to retreat when a person is in their own home. Stand-your-ground laws remove the duty to retreat in some cases of self-defense outside the home. By removing that duty, stand-your-ground laws are intended to reduce barriers to self-defense with the aim of improved self-defense and greater deterrence of criminal victimization.”
- “Firearm homicides: Fifteen studies evaluated the relationship between stand-your-ground laws and firearm-related homicides or murders. Among the eight higher-quality studies, seven found that stand-your ground laws were associated with higher rates of firearm homicide; while most estimates were uncertain, two studies found significant increases overall and one found a significant increase in urban areas.”
- “By reducing the threshold for the justified use of lethal force for self-protection, stand-your-ground laws should increase defensive gun use and, if a deterrent effect exists, may reduce rates of crime and violence. Specifically, stand-your-ground laws reduce the expected legal costs of defensive gun use by reducing the probability of incurring criminal or civil liability for inflicting fatal or nonfatal injury. The laws, in turn, increase the expected costs of violent criminal behavior because victims are more likely to respond using deadly force. This mechanism could serve to lower crime rates or could induce criminals to shift to other types of crime in which they are less likely to encounter armed resistance. In that case, crime rates could remain stable while the composition of crime types (e.g., robbery versus larceny) shifts. Alternatively, by lowering the legal risks of using deadly force, these laws could encourage the escalation of aggressive encounters, resulting in an overall increase in firearm homicides or injuries. Furthermore, the greater likelihood of facing a citizen willing to use a firearm defensively under these policies could induce criminals to carry firearms more often and thus increase the share of violent or property crimes involving firearms.”
While “SYG” laws reportedly have resulted in additional homicides, it is not entirely clear whether these are justifiable homicides or murder/manslaughter. The Rand article states, “Three studies, two of which had critical methodological issues, evaluated the relationship of stand-your-ground laws with justifiable homicides by private citizens. The methodologically stronger study found uncertain effects.”
Later in the same article, Rand does acknowledge, “Defensive gun use is a critical issue in policy decisions related to stand-your-ground laws, yet our data infrastructure to measure defensive gun use is extremely weak. Still, some data sources on defensive gun use or subsets of defensive gun use do exist. Most data sources lack the detail required to establish whether defensive gun use incidents were occurring specifically in areas newly affected by expanded stand-your-ground laws (versus, for instance, the home), although the detailed circumstance data in the National Violent Death Reporting System may be an untapped resource for such analyses.”
The Everytown report also suggests a racial disparity in whether shootings are ruled justifiable, asserting, “Across the country, whether a homicide is deemed justifiable often depends on the race of those involved. In every state, homicides are deemed justifiable more frequently when white shooters kill Black victims than when the situation is reversed. In Shoot First states, this disparity is even worse. Across all Shoot First states, these homicides are deemed justifiable four times as often, compared to three times as often in other states. And, some states face even more dramatic differences, with these cases deemed justified up to 13 times as often.20 With research finding that justifiable homicide rates increased by 55 percent in states with Shoot First laws,21 the impact is clear: These laws have disproportionately targeted Black people and made it more difficult for them and their survivors to receive justice.”
The important line in this paragraph is the one which acknowledges justifiable homicide rates went up 55 percent in states with SYG laws.
This much was reinforced by a 2019 report at the Journal of the American College of Surgeons, which noted SYG states “had significantly higher” justifiable homicide and homicide rates following passage of SYG laws.
The Capital Journal also notes, “People are more likely to carry guns in public in states with stand-your-ground laws, which also increases the risk of gun theft and violent confrontations, according to research cited in the Everytown report.”
However, gun theft was addressed recently by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which criticized the inherent danger of so-called “gun-free zones” where legally armed citizens must leave their guns in their cars, opening the door to increased gun theft from parked automobiles.
“Establishing laws that disarm honest citizens while creating risk-free environments for criminals and crazy people is not simply ineffective,” CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb stated, “it’s insane. Such restrictions not only make it impossible for victims to defend themselves, they provide unparalleled opportunities for thieves, especially during the holiday season.
“No law should ever be allowed to force law-abiding citizens to leave their means of self-defense locked in an automobile,” he said. “If you want to prevent gun thefts from parking lots and garages, don’t make things easier for thieves. If you want to deter mass shootings in public places, make it possible for people to fight back. If you want to keep guns out of the wrong hands, then allow those guns to be in the right hands.”
It is unlikely the Everytown report will cause repeal of SYG laws, but it does provide another opportunity to debate whether such laws have contributed to a reduction in overall violent crime. More time and research may be necessary to determine whether there is a deterrent effect of SYG laws. At the same time, research may also determine whether so-called “constitutional carry” statutes now in effect in 29 states are also having a deterrent effect on criminal activity.
What may occur is that gun control groups will say SYG and permitless carry have created a nightmare, while gun rights groups and Second Amendment advocates will argue the opposite.
