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