----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:40 PM > Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States > > > > > > > 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*? > > That is an interesting, but seperate question. When I was talking about > areas, I was thinking less of broad areas in the state, but the difficulty > in getting data on units as small as neighborhoods. My reference is that > the Woodlands, an unincorporated area of about 70k people, has 7 different > official neighborhoods. So, with neighborhoods in the 5k-20k size, one > would get a lot of neighborhoods in any metro area. > > > >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.) > > I would tend to agree. Guns that are used in hunting and are locked up, > with the ammo locked separately take more conscious thought to use than a > loaded gun in the drawer. One can kill someone in a split second of rage > with the other, the former takes at least a bit of obvious effort. > Well, there are 50 or 60 million gunowners in the US. Compared to those numbers the number of "rage" killings is pretty minute. "Rage" killings are still a small fraction of "reported" defense uses too. I think there is too much focus on the negative stats and probabilities and this blinds people to the reality of the situation. xponent More Facts Please Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
