From: holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland)
Subject: Re: "43 to 1" all over again.
Nntp-Posting-Host: beethoven.cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department
Lines: 37

In article <1993Apr21.175441.22582@iitmax.iit.edu> draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:
>[Followups to talk.politics.guns only.]
>
>In article <1qv87v$4j3@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares
>writes:
>>In article <C5n3GI.F8F@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John
>>Lawrence Rutledge) writes:
>>
>So, a person who keeps a gun at home is 43 times more likely to die,
>at home, from a gunshot than he or she is likely to kill an intruder.
>
>Sounds like apples 'n' oranges to me.
>
>In any case, has anybody tried to make the obvious counter-study?
>
>What are the numbers for someone who does not keep a gun at home?
>That is, what is the ratio of dying-at-home-from-a-gunshot to
>killing-an-intruder, for people who do NOT keep guns in their homes?
>
>So, what are is the ratio of unarmed people shot to death in their
>homes v.s. unarmed people who kill intruders?  Is it worse than 6 to 1?
>
>Inquiring minds want to know.

I don't know this specific ratio, but I do have an earlier post that says
a gun is 33 times more likely to defend someone (including the times where
the gun isn't fired, just scares the perpetrator away) than it is to kill
someone. (including self defense)  The post is kind of long, but I'll be
glad to dig it up and email it to anyone who asks.

Doug Holland

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Doug Holland                | Anyone who tries to take away my freedom  |
|  holland@cs.colostate.edu    | of speech will have to pry it from my     |
|  PGP key available by E-mail | cold, dead lips!!                         |
