----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 11:02 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 4:41 PM > Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States > > > > Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 4:02 PM > > > Subject: Most Dangerous States > > > > > > > > > > > >>http://www.morganquitno.com/dang02.htm > > >> > > >>Nevada 7th most dangerous > > >>Texas 14th > > >>New York 24th > > >> > > > > > > > > > You forgot to mention California is 13th. > > > > > > > No, I didn't forget, I just didn't think it had any relevance in the > > current discussion. If anything, since California's rate is about > > the same as Texas and it is listed as less dangerous than Nevada, it > > falsifies Jan's implication that Nevada and Texas are much safer (or > > much more "polite"). > > > This is a bit off on a tangent but deserves to be seen. > > > Evaluating the "43 times" fallacy > > by David K. Felbeck > Director, Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners > August 10, 2000 > > Those who oppose the use of firearms for self-defense have for fourteen > years quoted a study by Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay published in the > June 12, 1986 issue of New England Journal of Medicine (v. 314, n. 24, p. > 1557-60) which concluded that a firearm in the home is "43 times more > likely" to be used to kill a member of the household than to kill a criminal > intruder. This "statistic" is used regularly by anti self-protection groups > which surely know better, and was even published recently without question > in a letter to the Ann Arbor News. Representative Liz Brater cited this "43 > times" number in a House committee hearing just a year ago. Thus the > original study and its conclusion deserve careful analysis. If nothing else, > the repeated use of this "statistic" demonstrates how a grossly inaccurate > statement can become a "truth" with sufficient repetition by the compliant > and non-critical media. > > The "43 times" claim was based upon a small-scale study of firearms deaths > in King County, Washington (Seattle and Bellevue) covering the period > 1978-83. The authors state, > > "Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or > intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. > Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known > to be armed are also not identified.A complete determination of firearm > risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known." And the best way to show how this is true is to show how the % of people who are victims of crimes and own guns are much lower than the % of people who simply own guns. If owning guns is as much of a deterrant as this author suggests, than one should see a significantly lower crime rate for households that have guns vs. households that don't. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
