Guns Don't Kill People. People Kill People. And Monkeys Do Too if They Have a Gun.

Okay, let me get this straight...We shouldn't do research on stem cells because one day, if enough little children vigorously clap their hands to indicate that they truly believe in them, they might grow up to become snowflake babies, ut it's okay to shoot someone even if they pose no immediate physical threat to you? Merely because they're uncomfortably close to shit you own?

Take it away, NYT:

In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.

This must be the work of Democrats, because Ramesh Ponnaru informs me that they are the "Party of Death."

The first of the new laws took effect in Florida in October, and cases under it are now reaching prosecutors and juries there. The other laws, mostly in Southern and Midwestern states, were enacted this year, according to the National Rifle Association, which has enthusiastically promoted them.

Well, I'm sure it's all those Democrats in the NRA that are behind this.

Anyone else not surprised to see Florida leading the pack on this? Whether it's incidences of burning crosses found on the lawns of elderly black couples, number of Confederate flags per capita, election fraud or lenient gun legislation, you can always look to the Sunshine State to lead the way for the rest of us.

Florida does not keep comprehensive records on the impact of its new law, but prosecutors and defense lawyers there agree that fewer people who claim self-defense are being charged or convicted.

Let's get one thing clear right off the bat. I'm not anti-self defense laws. If someone wants to kill and/or rape you, it's probably a good idea to try to kill and/or rape them first. Okay, maybe don't rape them. Unless, you know...they're really asking for it. Then, rape them as a warning and figure they'll probably leave you alone from now, if for no other reson than shame.

This isn't about self-defense. You can already get away with killing someone who's trying to kill you in Florida. (And if it's just a black person, they might not even bother to send a cop to do any time-consuming paperwork!) This is about giving people the right to kill someone to protect their precious stuff.

The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.

So it seems that, as a society, we're establishing that it's okay to kill someone who tries to steal your car. We should probably set some boundaries right now for this entire principle, don't you think? What's the cheapest item of personal property that it's okay to murder over? What if someone wants to steal your new plasma TV? That'll run you a few thousand, the price of a used car. How about a nice cashmere sweater? An iPod?

To put it another way...In legal terms, what would you do for a Klondike bar. Would you shoot a man in cold blood?

In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the law’s words, “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.

The central innovation in the Florida law, said Anthony J. Sebok, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, is not its elimination of the duty to retreat, which has been eroding nationally through judicial decisions, but in expanding the right to shoot intruders who pose no threat to the occupant’s safety.

"In effect,” Professor Sebok said, “the law allows citizens to kill other citizens in defense of property.”

Yeah. The "Keep Away from My Stuff" Act of 2006. (Alternatively, the "Stop or My Mom Will Shoot" Act, I can't decide which I like better.)

So, the government is now telling us that, should we find ourselves in a situation where someone might possibly want to do us harm, the best solution would be to try an dinstigate a violent conflict? "Stand your ground" is good advice when a bully is picking on you, but that's assuming the bully does not have a razor-sharp hunting knife and undiagnosed schizophrenia. In that case, I'm tempted to suggest running away whilst screaming like a little girl as the best and most effective policy.

But that's me. Not everyone approaches interpersonal conflict this way. If threatened on a street corner, our President would probably decide to take a beating for several hours, hoping for a chance to get in a sucker punch before passing out in a pool of his own blood and teeth, then wake up and begin sneering at all the idiots who aren't man enough to get their asses kicked for no reason. It's up to each individual, really.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens.

“If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side,” Mr. LaPierre said. “Good people make good decisions. That’s why they’re good people. If you’re going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.”

Truly, Wayne LaPierre is one of the great underappreciated social philosophers of our times. "Good people make good decisions." Brilliant. But, Wayne, what happens if one bad person breaks into the home of another bad person? Whose side would the law take in that unlikely situation? Did I just blow your mind?

I mean, "that's why they're good people"? What the hell is this idiot talking about? There's no "good people" and "bad people"! What does he think this is, a Stephen King novel? This ain't Castle Rock, motherfucker, we're all just a bunch of people. Now heavily armed and cavalier about murdering our fellow citizens, thanks to folks like you and the elected representatives of 15 states!

Many prosecutors oppose the laws, saying they are unnecessary at best and pernicious at worst. “They’re basically giving citizens more rights to use deadly force than we give police officers, and with less review,” said Paul A. Logli, president of the National District Attorneys Association.

But some legal experts doubt the laws will make a practical difference. “It’s inconceivable to me that one in a hundred Floridians could tell you how the law has changed,” said Gary Kleck, who teaches criminology at Florida State University.

Even before the new laws, Professor Kleck added, claims of self-defense were often accepted. “In the South,” he said, “they more or less give the benefit of the doubt to the alleged victim’s account.”

Yeah, that's the moral standard I always apply when considering new laws. "How do they deal with this issue in the Deep South?" You can always turn to Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana if you want a fair-minded, well-considered approach to public policy. Except when it comes to literacy and economics and infant mortality and social services and civil rights and racial equality and disaster preparedness.