Dan Minette wrote:
>
> ----- 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
>
> > 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.
I wonder: if you looked at *areas* more likely to have guns in the
household vs. *areas* less likely to have guns in the household, would
you see a noticeable difference in the crime rate in those *areas*? How
about rural vs. urban areas with each characteristic? (I think that gun
deaths are less likely with the same %age of gun owners in rural areas
than urban, but I may be wrong on that.)
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
