GG> All:  There is an internet site, I would to remember their name, which 
 GG> makes the assertion that a firearm kept in the home is 
 GG> 43 times more likely 
 GG> to cause death to children, visitors, or the owner, 
 GG> than it is to be used  to defend the home.
 GG> I responded asking for authority for this statistic.
There are some easy questions that can help any average person realize that 
3
is suspect.  
There are tens of thousands of deaths involving firearms annually in the US. 
That includes homicides, suicides, and accidents, in the home and on the 
streets
and elsewhere.  Assuming that most of those took place at home (AFAIK that
balance has more away from home), that would limit possible home defenses 
ith
firearms to under a thousand a year nationally.  
About a third of adults own arms.  Due to marriages, that would suggest about
half of homes have arms.  There are around 100 million households in the US, 
of
which we can presume 50 million have arms.  
Would anyone believe that our crime rate is so low that only 1 in 100,000 of
those needs defense by its owner annually?  Or, of over 1,000 households, 
would
anyone believe that less than one is ever invaded with the owner at home?  
Assuming you know enough about crime figures to know this is absurd, and
perhaps even realize that there are more home defenses a year than firearm
deaths, it's clear that the 43 figure is way, way off base.  
Considering that there are around 1500 justifiable homicides annually by
non-LEO's, in and out of homes, the number 43 fits several hundred of those
being justifiable homicides in defense of home, which of course is what other
reports indicate it really was.  
Two other views:  Some of those killed were criminals in the commission of
felonies, even if known to the homeowner. 
Legally in many states one cannot 'defend the home', but only those persons 
n
it at risk of imminent serious injury.  
Terry
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------