shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) (03/08/85)
>> Shallit; > Stewart >> A 1975 study of 1200 >> robberies in Chicago showed >> that less than 1% of robbery victims were >> able to use a weapon to resist their assailants. [Dr. Richard >> Block, Center for Studies in Criminal Justice, University of >> Chicago.] >I was going to stay out of this, but I couldn't resist. Far from being >an argument FOR gun control, this little bit of information should be >used to support the "only outlaws will have guns" position. > >It's hardly surprising that victims in Chicago could not use weapons to >defend themselves, since Chicago has a virtual gun ban (actually, it's >a legal farce where guns have to be "registered", but they refuse to >register any guns). > Both J. Storrs Hall and Mr. Stewart have attempted to use the above argument, claiming that this is an argument "for gun control" since Chicago has a restrictive handgun law. This, of course, is nonsense, since the law that both Hall and Stewart refer to (which put a "freeze" on the ability to register firearms in the city) was passed in *1982*. It seems unlikely this could have had much effect on a study done in *1975*. Distortion and a lack of knowledge about the facts is a problem common to Mr. Hall. Jeffrey Shallit
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (03/09/85)
> Shallit > > Both J. Storrs Hall and Mr. Stewart have attempted to use the above > argument, claiming that this is an argument "for gun control" since > Chicago has a restrictive handgun law. > > This, of course, is nonsense, since the law that both Hall and Stewart > refer to (which put a "freeze" on the ability to register firearms > in the city) was passed in *1982*. It seems unlikely this could > have had much effect on a study done in *1975*. > > Jeffrey Shallit Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that Chicago has a long history of repressive gun laws--indeed, it has had to create special separate courts to handle gun-law violations. --JoSH
stewart@ihldt.UUCP (R. J. Stewart) (03/11/85)
>>> A 1975 study of 1200 >> robberies in Chicago showed >>> that less than 1% of robbery victims were >>> able to use a weapon to resist their assailants. >>It's hardly surprising that victims in Chicago could not use weapons to >>defend themselves, since Chicago has a virtual gun ban (actually, it's >>a legal farce where guns have to be "registered", but they refuse to >>register any guns). > This, of course, is nonsense, since the law that both Hall and Stewart > refer to (which put a "freeze" on the ability to register firearms > in the city) was passed in *1982*. It seems unlikely this could > have had much effect on a study done in *1975*. Mea Culpa! I looked it up, and Jeff is right about this particular law. I checked back several years, though, and found that Chicago gun laws have always been *very* strict. So, I think the basic point is still valid: is it meaningful to pass strict gun laws, then support them (after the fact) by showing that only criminals use guns? Aside: The law makes it mandatory that guns be registered with the city. It is an administrative policy under which no guns are registered. Quite aside from the gun issue, I object to this "back door" approach to government. Bob Stewart ihldt!stewart