bellas@ttidcb.UUCP (Pete Bellas) (02/26/85)
There seems to be a lot of statistics thrown about here over how many people are killed by guns and how many use guns to protect themselves. In going through my 1984 "Book of Lists" I found the following numbers. In the US in 1984: Each day 63 people are killed by someone with a handgun. Each day 620 people use a handgun to scare/capture/kill an attacker. I personaly don't think that statistics have any place in the discussion of gun ownership(although they do speak for themselves). Private ownership of guns is necessary if we want to continue living in a free society. -Pete-
shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) (03/02/85)
In article <> bellas@ttidcb.UUCP (Pete Bellas) writes: >There seems to be a lot of statistics thrown about here over >how many people are killed by guns and how many use guns to >protect themselves. In going through my 1984 "Book of Lists" >I found the following numbers. > >In the US in 1984: > >Each day 63 people are killed by someone with a handgun. >Each day 620 people use a handgun to scare/capture/kill an attacker. > OK, I'll bite. What's the source of these so-called statistics? (Don't tell me the Book of Lists). I want to know what study reports these bogus figures. I posted *my* source. Let me post another. 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 personaly don't think that statistics have any place in >the discussion of gun ownership(although they do speak for >themselves). Private ownership of guns is necessary if we >want to continue living in a free society. Right. For example, like that totalitarian state which strongly regulates private ownership of handguns-- Japan. Why is it "necessary"? Beliefs like this explain why we have Ed Meese as attorney general. Jeff Shallit
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (03/04/85)
> Jeff Shallit: > I posted *my* source. Let me post another. 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.] Right. Because Chicago has a fascist gun control law, and the people who could have prevented those 1200 robberies were prevented by assholes like Shallit. --Who called for a "truce" on the subject in net.politics, and then broke it. Let me re-propose it: no subject has been more uselessly over-discussed with the possible exception of abortion. I agreed to shut up to allow other subjects a chance. I'll stay shut up as long as Shallit (in particular) does. Bye! --JoSH
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (03/05/85)
> Right. Because Chicago has a fascist gun control law, and the people > who could have prevented those 1200 robberies were prevented by assholes > like Shallit. --Who called for a "truce" on the subject in net.politics, > and then broke it. ... > --JoSH Yeah, almost as fascist as burning Jews. Or to put it another way, clearly this man is doesn't know what "fascist" means. Note: This is does not mean that I am pro- or anti- gun control. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "2*x^5-10*x+5=0 is not solvable by radicals." -Evariste Galois.
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (03/06/85)
> > Right. Because Chicago has a fascist gun control law, and the people > ... > > --JoSH > > Yeah, almost as fascist as burning Jews. Or to put it another way, clearly > this man is doesn't know what "fascist" means. > Greg Kuperberg Greg is confusing "Fascist" with "Nazi" perhaps. The Nazis killed (actually mostly by gassing) Jews. The word Fascist, both in its particular application to a political party and in its historical roots, is Italian. (It comes from "fascia", the bundle of rods + axe that were the symbol of Roman magistrates.) Webster's says: fascism, n: 1: a political philosophy ... that exalts nation and race above the individual ... 2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control. I claim that this is *exactly* how I intended to characterize Chicago's gun laws. Furthermore, I suspect that Greg (a) knows what I meant, (b) knows what "fascist" in common usage means, and therefore (c) was deliberately lying in claiming the opposite. --JoSH
stewart@ihldt.UUCP (R. J. Stewart) (03/06/85)
> I posted *my* source. Let me post another. 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.] > > Jeff Shallit 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). Bob Stewart ihldt!stewart
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (03/07/85)
> > > Right. Because Chicago has a fascist gun control law, and the people > > ... > > > --JoSH > > > > Yeah, almost as fascist as burning Jews. Or to put it another way, clearly > > this man is doesn't know what "fascist" means. > > Greg Kuperberg > > Greg is confusing "Fascist" with "Nazi" perhaps. The Nazis killed (actually > mostly by gassing) Jews. The word Fascist, both in its particular > application to a political party and in its historical roots, is Italian. > (It comes from "fascia", the bundle of rods + axe that were the symbol > of Roman magistrates.) > > Webster's says: > fascism, n: 1: a political philosophy ... that exalts nation and race > above the individual ... 2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of > strong autocratic or dictatorial control. > > I claim that this is *exactly* how I intended to characterize Chicago's > gun laws. Furthermore, I suspect that Greg (a) knows what I meant, > (b) knows what "fascist" in common usage means, and therefore (c) > was deliberately lying in claiming the opposite. > > --JoSH Brushing aside the insults, I maintain that your use of the word was a grotesque exaggeration. In common usage, the word fascist has come to mean a philisophy as diabolical and in the same vein as the views that the Axis leaders held (which was pretty close to Webster's). Calling a gun-control law fascist is like calling a ten-year-old juvenile delinquent an anarchist. Yeah, I know what you meant, and I don't like such overstatements. (Don't think that I'm a BHL because of this. I also cringe when people say this about Reagan.) --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "2*x^5-10*x+5=0 is not solvable by radicals." -Evariste Galois.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/08/85)
I regret having to include the whole of the following exchange, but it seems the only way to make a point: >> > Right. Because Chicago has a fascist gun control law, and the people >> ... >> > --JoSH >> >> Yeah, almost as fascist as burning Jews. Or to put it another way, clearly >> this man is doesn't know what "fascist" means. >> Greg Kuperberg > >Greg is confusing "Fascist" with "Nazi" perhaps. The Nazis killed (actually >mostly by gassing) Jews. The word Fascist, both in its particular >application to a political party and in its historical roots, is Italian. >(It comes from "fascia", the bundle of rods + axe that were the symbol >of Roman magistrates.) > >Webster's says: >fascism, n: 1: a political philosophy ... that exalts nation and race >above the individual ... 2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of >strong autocratic or dictatorial control. > >I claim that this is *exactly* how I intended to characterize Chicago's >gun laws. Furthermore, I suspect that Greg (a) knows what I meant, >(b) knows what "fascist" in common usage means, and therefore (c) >was deliberately lying in claiming the opposite. > >--JoSH It is hard to determine whether JoSH is obtuse, deliberately appearing to be obtuse, or just inflammatory. If he claims that ANY law puts nation above individual, and is therefore fascist, he has redefined "fascist" to a meaningless level of generality. If he claims ANY law restricting gun ownership is fascist because it is a "tendency or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control", I suspect he should look at how Chicago selects its autocrats. My understanding is that they have elections, as elsewhere, and that Richard Daley no longer rigs them to the level that Chicago has a dictator nowadays. If JoSH means that any law is fascist simply because it is a law, he should get out of discussions on net.politics (or anywhere else than net.flame). JoSH at least owes Greg Kuperberg an apology for the libel in saying he was deliberately lying. (Libel, as opposed to slander, involves publishing the damaging false information, and I think Usenet comes closer to publication than to verbal report.) -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt