Month: November 2025

Twenty years ago, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush signed the first “stand your ground” law, calling it a “good, common-sense, anti-crime issue.”

The law’s creators promised it would protect law-abiding citizens from prosecution if they used force in self-defense. Then-Florida state Rep. Dennis Baxley, who cosponsored the bill, claimed – in the wake of George Zimmerman’s controversial acquittal for the killing of Trayvon Martin – that “we’re really safer if we empower people to stop violent acts.”

I’m a historian who has studied the roots of stand your ground laws. I published a book on the subject in 2017. My ongoing investigation of the laws suggests that, 20 years on, they have not made communities any safer, nor have they helped prevent crime. In fact, there is reliable evidence they have done just the opposite.

In the past 20 years, stand your ground has spread to 38 states.

Then, in September 2025, an appellate court struck down Florida’s long-standing ban on the open carry of firearms.

Florida’s attorney general, James Uthmeier, quickly announced that open carry is now “the law of the state,” directing law enforcement not to arrest people who display handguns in public.

Under the state’s permitless carry law, enacted in 2023, adults without a criminal record also don’t need a permit or any training to carry firearms publicly.

In my view, this combination of stand your ground, open carry and permitless carry is likely to make the Sunshine State far less safe.

Let’s look at the evidence.

What ‘stand your ground’ means

Under traditional self-defense law, a person had a duty to retreat – to try to avoid a violent confrontation if they could safely do so – before resorting to deadly force.

The main exception to the duty to retreat was known as the castle doctrine, whereby people could defend themselves, with force if necessary, if they were attacked in their own homes.

Stand your ground laws effectively expand the boundaries of the castle doctrine to the wider world, removing the duty to retreat and allowing people to use lethal force anywhere they have a legal right to be, as long as they believe it’s necessary to prevent death or serious harm.

On paper, the expansion of the right to self-defense may sound reasonable. But in practice, stand your ground laws have blurred the line between self-defense and aggression by expanding legal immunity for some who claim self-defense and shifting the burden of proof to prosecutors.

While supporters of these laws claim they mitigate crime and make people safer, evidence shows the opposite. The nonpartisan RAND Corp. discovered that states adopting stand your ground laws experienced significant increases in homicide, typically between 8% and 11% higher than before the laws took effect.

A study of violent crime in Florida revealed a 31.6% increase in firearm homicides following the 2005 passage of the stand your ground law. There is no credible evidence that these laws deter crime.

On the contrary, evidence shows that stand your ground laws lower the legal, moral and psychological costs of pulling the trigger.

Stand your ground and race

While the language of stand your ground laws is race-neutral, their enforcement is not. Data from the Urban Institute and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights show that in states with stand your ground laws, homicides are far more likely to be deemed “justified” when the shooter is white and the victim is Black.

I’ve found that these laws have redefined not only when force is justified but who is justified in using force.

In my assessment, these laws don’t create racial bias. Rather, they magnify the biases already present in our criminal legal system. They give broader discretion to a legal system in which law enforcement officers, judges, prosecutors and juries often hold unacknowledged biases that associate Black men with criminality, while perceiving white people who say they were defending themselves as credible.

That dynamic is visible in a growing multitude of cases, such as the shootings of unarmed teenagers Trayvon Martin, Jordan Davis, Renisha McBride and Ralph Yarl.

Each instance illustrates how stand your ground transforms ordinary mistakes or misunderstandings into lethal outcomes, and how armed citizens’ claims of “reasonable fear” often reflect racial stereotypes more than objective threats.

A dangerous mix

Florida’s legalization of open carry intersects with the state’s permitless carry and stand your ground laws in alarming ways. Open carry increases the visibility – and perceived legitimacy – of guns in everyday life.

Combined with the removal of licensing procedures and training requirements, laws that broaden the right to use deadly force create a permissive environment for opportunistic violence.

When everyone is visibly armed, every encounter can look like a potential threat. And when the law tells you that you don’t have to back down, that perception can turn lethal in seconds.

Florida has become a model for what gun rights advocates call “freedom” but what public health experts see as a recipe for more shootings and more death.

National implications: ‘Reciprocity’ and expansion

Two decades later, stand your ground laws have spread, in various forms, to 38 states. While 30 states have legislatively enacted stand your ground statutes like Florida’s, eight others implement stand your ground through case law and jury instructions that effectively remove the duty to retreat.

On top of this, 29 states have enacted laws allowing permitless carry, and 47 technically allow open carry, though restrictions vary across the states.

President Donald Trump has made clear he wants to take this deregulatory approach nationwide. While on the campaign trail, he promised to sign a “concealed-carry reciprocity” law, which would require all states to allow people from states with permissive laws to exercise those rights in all 50. “Your Second Amendment does not end at the state line,” he announced in a 2023 video.

If that vision becomes reality, it would mean the most permissive state laws will set the standard for the entire country. National reciprocity would allow Floridians, and other gun owners from permitless carry states, to carry their firearms – and potentially claim stand your ground immunity – in any other state, including those with stricter rules and lower rates of firearm death and injury.

This prospect raises deep questions about states’ rights, safety and justice. Research shows that stand your ground laws increase homicide and exacerbate racial disparities. National reciprocity would export those effects nationwide.

In my view, the convergence of stand your ground, open carry and national reciprocity marks the culmination of a 20-year experiment in armed citizenship. The results are clear: more people armed, more shootings and more deaths “justified.”

The question now is whether the rest of the nation will follow Florida’s lead.

Read more stories from The Conversation about Florida.

Caroline Light is affiliated with GVPedia and collaborates with Giffords.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Long before the first shots were fired in the Civil War, beginning early in the 19th century, Americans had been fighting a protracted war of words over slavery.

On one side, Southern planters and slavery apologists portrayed the practice of human bondage as sanctioned by God and beneficial even to enslaved people.

On the other side, opponents of slavery painted a picture of violence, injustice and the hypocrisy of professed Christians defending the sin of slavery.

But to the abolitionists, it became crucial to transcend mere rhetoric. They wanted to show Americans uncomfortable truths about the practice of slavery – a strategy that is happening again as activists and citizens fight modern-day attempts at historical whitewashing.

As a media scholar who has studied the history of abolitionist journalism, I hear echoes of that two-century-old narrative battle in President Donald Trump’s effort to purge public memorials and markers honoring the suffering and heroism of the enslaved as well as those who championed their freedom.

Celebration vs. reality

Among the materials reportedly flagged for removal from history museums, national parks and other government facilities is a disturbing but powerful photograph known as “The Scourged Back.”

The 1863 image depicts a formerly enslaved man, his back horrifically scarred by whipping. It’s certainly hard to look at, yet to look away or try to forget it means to ignore what it has to say about the complicated and often brutal history of the nation.

In Trump’s view, these memorials are “revisionist” and “driven by ideology rather than truth.” In an executive order named Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History, Trump said public materials should “focus on the greatness of the achievements and progress of the American people.”

Essentially, the president appears to want a history that celebrates American achievement rather than being forced to look at “The Scourged Back” and other historical realities that document aspects of the American story that don’t warrant celebration.

Combating ignorance of slavery’s horrors

Thinking back to the decades leading up to the Civil War, facts were the weapon abolitionists wielded in their fight against the distortions of pro-slavery forces. It was an uphill battle in the face of indifference by many in the North. After a visit to Massachusetts in 1830, abolitionist writer William Lloyd Garrison blamed such attitudes on “exceeding ignorance of the horrors of slavery.”

It is not surprising that in the early 19th century many Americans would have had limited knowledge of slavery. Travel was arduous, time-consuming and expensive, and most Northerners had little firsthand exposure to slave societies. Abolitionists argued that those who did visit the South were often shielded from the harsher realities of slavery. This extended to the media ecosystem, which lacked any real national news organizations.

Moreover, Southern plantation owners carried out a robust propaganda effort to extol the beneficence of their economic system. In letters, pamphlets and books, they argued that slavery was beneficial to all and that the enslaved were happy and well-treated. They also attacked their opponents as evil and dishonest.

As abolitionist Lydia Maria Child wrote in 1838: “The apologists of Southern slavery are accustomed to brand every picture of slavery and its fruits as exaggeration or calumny.”

Don’t look away

Thus, the challenge for abolitionists was to show slavery as it really was – and to compel people to look. An emphasis on hard evidence took firm hold in the wave of abolitionism in the 1830s.

Activists didn’t yet have photography, so they relied on accounts from eyewitnesses and formerly enslaved people, official reports and even some plantation owners’ own words in Southern newspaper advertisements seeking the return of runaways.

“Until the pictures of the slave’s sufferings were drawn up and held up to public gaze, no Northerner had any idea of the cruelty of the system,” abolitionist Angelina Grimké wrote in her famous “Appeal to the Christian Women of the South” in 1836.

“It never entered their minds that such abominations could exist in Christian, Republican America; they never suspected that many of the gentlemen and ladies who came from the South to spend the summer months in travelling among them, were petty tyrants at home,” Grimké wrote.

In pamphlets and newspapers, Grimké and others laid down a documentary record of the abuses of slavery, naming names and emphasizing legal evidence of their claims. In my research, I have argued that while abolitionists didn’t invent the journalistic exposé, they did develop the first fully articulated methodology for confronting abuses of power through carefully documented facts – laying the groundwork for later generations of investigative reporters and fact-checkers.

Most critically, what they did is point a finger at injustice and demand that America not look away. In its first issue, in 1835, the newspaper Human Rights emphasized “the importance of first settling what slavery really is.” Inside, it included a series of advertisements documenting slave sales and rewards for runaways reprinted from Southern newspapers.

The headline: “ LOOK AT THIS!!”

Tried and acquitted

One of the most remarkable efforts in this abolitionist campaign was a 233-page pamphlet called “American Slavery As It Is: Testimony of a Thousand Witnesses.” Published in 1839 by Theodore Dwight Weld along with his wife, Angelina Grimké, and her sister, it was an exhaustively documented exposé of floggings, torture, killings, overwork and undernourishment.

One example involved a wealthy tobacconist who whipped a 15-year-old girl to death: “While he was whipping her, his wife heated a smoothing iron, put it on her body in various places, and burned her severely. The verdict of the coroner’s inquest was, ‘Died of excessive whipping.’ He was tried in Richmond and acquitted.”

It is difficult reading, to be sure, and certainly the kind of material that might foster “a national sense of shame,” as Trump’s executive order claims. But getting rid of the evils of slavery meant first acknowledging them. And the second part – critical to avoiding the mistakes of the past – is remembering them.

‘Consciences shocked’

So how effective was this abolitionist campaign to lay bare the terrible facts about slavery?

At least some readers of “American Slavery As It Is” had their consciences shocked. One New Hampshire newspaper reacted this way: “We thought we knew something of the horrid character of slavery before, but upon looking over the pages of this book, we find that we had no adequate idea of the number and enormity of the cruelties which are constantly being perpetrated under this system of all abominations.”

And one famous reader was Harriet Beecher Stowe, who drew on the book as inspiration for “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” published more than a decade later.

The 1830s reflected the height of the abolitionist movement in books, pamphlets and newspapers. While the activism continued in the 1840s and 1850s, ultimately it took secession and civil war to finally end slavery. But, of course, it didn’t take long for the country to fall into a prolonged period of formal and informal segregation in both the North and the South, many vestiges of which remain.

That reality of a history that doesn’t proceed along a straight path to justice underscores the importance of preserving, remembering and teaching difficult parts of the past such as “The Scourged Back.”

On the title page of “American Slavery As It Is,” Weld and the Grimkés printed a quote from the biblical book of Ezekiel: “Behold the wicked abominations that they do.” It was a command to the nation to look without flinching at what it was, and it is as pertinent today as it was then.

Gerry Lanosga does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Political violence among rival partisans has been a deadly and destabilizing force throughout history and across the globe. It has claimed countless lives, deepened social divisions and even led to the collapse of democratic systems.

In recent history, political violence and its deadly consequences were seen in Italy after World War I when thousands of fascist supporters marched on Rome, the capital, threatening to overthrow the government unless Benito Mussolini was appointed prime minister. That kind of violence and its effects were also seen in 1930s Germany, where Adolf Hitler suppressed opposition and suspended civil liberties amid widespread unrest and factional violence.

Similar patterns occurred elsewhere in the decades that followed. Fascist movements used political violence and intimidation to seize or consolidate power, as seen in Spain under Francisco Franco, in Portugal under António de Oliveira Salazar and in Romania under the Iron Guard.

Today, many scholars, journalists, commentators and elected officials across the political spectrum have voiced alarm over escalating acts of violence in the United States, drawing parallels to Europe’s authoritarian past. Reports of politically motivated violence are distressingly common – ranging from mass shootings, car-ramming attacks and assaults at demonstrations to assassination attempts, kidnappings and threats targeting mayors, governors, political activists and members of Congress.

For example, threats of violence against members of Congress increased by more than 1,400%, from 902 in 2016 to an estimated 14,000 by the end of 2025, according to U.S. Capitol Police reports.

Political violence is certainly not new in American society, but current patterns differ in key ways. We found that, today, white nationalism is a key driver of support for political violence – a sign that white nationalism poses substantial danger to U.S. political stability.

In the 1970s, violence was political theater, aimed at drawing government and public attention to specific policies. Today, it’s personal and deadly, driven by a desire to annihilate.

Changing targets

In the 1970s, radical left-wing groups often targeted government property to send political messages.

Attacks included the anti–Vietnam War bombings carried out by the Weather Underground, as well as actions by groups such as the Symbionese Liberation Army and United Freedom Front. They struck government and corporate targets to protest imperialism, racism and economic inequality. These attacks were generally intended as statements rather than mass-casualty events, with perpetrators often issuing warnings beforehand to minimize harm.

Today, however, much of the violence is aimed directly at individuals, often with the intent to harm or kill political opponents.

These include incidents such as the 2017 shooting targeting Republican lawmakers at a congressional baseball practice, the 2022 hammer attack on Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi, and the 2025 killing of Democrat Melissa Hortman, the former speaker of the Minnesota House, and her husband in what authorities described as a politically motivated assassination.

This resurgence of political violence has prompted intense academic and journalistic scrutiny. Numerous public opinion surveys have sought to gauge Americans’ approval of, or concern about, using violence against the government or political adversaries.

Initial estimates suggested nearly 1 in 4 Americans support political violence. But later studies identified flaws in the questions used to measure support for violence. Simply asking about violence in general or the use of force leaves too much room for interpretation.

Using more sophisticated questioning techniques results in lower estimates of public support for political violence.

Understanding what drives individuals to endorse political violence is essential for developing effective strategies to prevent it. As public opinion researchers who have studied Americans’ attitudes toward ideological extremism, political polarization and counterterrorism policy, we sought to advance our understanding of the factors underlying public support for political violence in the United States.

We aimed to do this in two ways: by using more specific questioning techniques and by identifying the factors associated with increased support for violence.

Who justifies political violence?

Our study focused specifically on white nationalism – a growing movement in the U.S. – as a driver of support for violence.

We asked a national sample of 1,300 Americans how justified or unjustified it would be “to take violent action against the U.S. government” in response to a range of government actions. This approach captures both approval of the use of violence and its political motivation.

We included nonpartisan government actions such as “the government violated or took away citizens’ rights and freedoms” and “the government violated the U.S. Constitution” along with hypothetical actions reflecting right or left-wing political causes. For example, a right-wing action would be to ban all abortions while a left-wing action would be to legalize all abortions.

Analyses revealed substantial support for violence against the government in response to the nonpartisan government actions. Half of the respondents indicated that violence would be justified if the government violated citizens’ rights, and 55% supported the use of violence as a response if the U.S. government committed unlawful violence against citizens. Nearly 40% said that violence would be justified if the government censored the news.

When we examined the factors behind these attitudes, a belief in white nationalism stood out above all others. But what, precisely, is white nationalism? It is more than simply identifying as white. Indeed, white nationalism is a sentiment found among some nonwhite Americans as well.

White nationalists are concerned about the increasing diversity of the American population and want to ensure that white citizens maintain a predominant influence in the country. To them, white citizens’ social, cultural and political values are superior to those of nonwhite citizens and immigrants. The perceived need to protect and propagate these values serves as a call to action.

This ideology has motivated several recent acts of mass violence, from synagogue shootings to racially targeted attacks.

Our data revealed that a belief in white nationalism predicted support for political violence as well. In response to both nonpartisan government actions and those that would benefit left-wing causes, the stronger a person’s white nationalist sentiment, the more strongly that individual believed that violence would be justified.

Out of all the variables in our statistical models, including political views and demographic characteristics, white nationalism was the strongest predictor of support for violence in these circumstances.

It did not, however, significantly influence support for violence when the government actions would benefit right-wing causes.

Growing threat to US democracy

Most people who voice support for political violence will never commit violent acts themselves.

Yet such attitudes foster an atmosphere of tolerance, signaling that violence is acceptable and enabling its continuation. Our analyses show that these supportive attitudes are prevalent among white nationalists.

Active white nationalist groups operate in all but two U.S. states, Alaska and Vermont. Decentralized groups, such as Active Clubs, where white nationalists train and network, are also on the rise.

Many more individuals hold white nationalist sentiments without belonging to organized groups. Indeed, in our national sample, one quarter of respondents agreed with the statement “although people won’t admit it, White Americans and their culture are what made America great in the first place.”

The fact that white nationalism is gaining prominence in the U.S., combined with the association between holding white nationalist views and supporting political violence found in our study, indicates that white nationalism poses a serious threat to U.S. political stability.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Another member of the conservative Heritage Foundation has resigned following a video posted by the organization’s president defending Tucker Carlson’s interview with Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes.

In a post to Facebook, board member Robert P. George said he can no longer remain part of the foundation without a “full retraction” of the video released last month by the organization’s president, Kevin Roberts.

“Although Kevin publicly apologized for some of what he said in the video, he could not offer a full retraction of its content. So, we reached an impasse,” George said.

Carlson’s interview with Fuentes — who has previously expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler — received widespread condemnation for antisemitism, and the aftermath has exposed fault lines among conservatives.

In his Oct. 30 video, Roberts denounced the “venomous coalition” criticizing both Fuentes and Carlson, adding that Carlson is a “close friend.” He said that though he disagrees with and even “abhors” things Fuentes said, he did not believe in “canceling” him or Carlson. On Sunday, President Donald Trump also defended Carlson, telling reporters “you can’t tell him who to interview.”

Fuentes, a well-known provocateur on the right, has previously said that “organized Jewry” is leading to the disappearance of white culture.

Roberts later said he “didn’t know much about this Fuentes guy,” and that his video script was written by an aide who has since resigned.

George on Monday said that Roberts is a “good man” who acknowledged a “serious mistake.”

“What divided us was a difference of opinion about what was required to rectify the mistake,” George added.

A spokesman for the Heritage Foundation confirmed George’s resignation in a statement to POLITICO, thanking him for his service and calling him a “good man” before defending Roberts.

“Under the leadership of Dr. Roberts, Heritage remains resolute in building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish. We are strong, growing, and more determined than ever to fight for our Republic,” the spokesman said.

George, the McCormick professor of jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, had been a Heritage trustee since 2019, according to the foundation’s website.

His resignation is one of several in light of Roberts’ video, including at least five members of the foundation’s antisemitism task force, according to CBS News.

“I pray that Heritage’s research and advocacy will be guided by the conviction that each and every member of the human family, irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion, or anything else, as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, is “created equal” and “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” George said.

​Politics

Trump tries to reclaim the narrative | The Playbook Podcast

lead image

​Politics