I read the first study, and to me it appears they are going to a lot of trouble just to end up with what amounts to an incredibly small sample size and a problem with the old "correlation does not equal causation" issues. They did a wonderful job of making it as complicated as possible, though. Of course that is coming from a guy that barely squeaked by statistics and could not stand econ. classes.
The second study might be interesting, but I am not willing to pay 5$ to read it and the summary does not tell me much about their methods.
The premise of the first seems to be that the lowered "cost" of shooting someone in a self-defense situation (removing civil liability and making justifying the use of deadly force in self defense easier) would increase the number of people willing to shoot someone in a questionable self defense situation instead of just "retreating" out of danger. I cannot imagine, in the heat of the moment, people are considering this sort of thing. If they are, I would suggest they are not likely under an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. That being said I am open to having my opinion changed, but the first study did not do it for me.
|