Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihldt.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ihldt!stewart From: stewart@ihldt.UUCP (R. J. Stewart) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: rebuttal to Hall and Stewart re: Gun Control Message-ID: <2789@ihldt.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Mar-85 11:41:46 EST Article-I.D.: ihldt.2789 Posted: Mon Mar 11 11:41:46 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Mar-85 22:03:51 EST References: <> <352@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <> <359@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 27 >>> 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