Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!crsp!gargoyle!shallit From: shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: rebuttal to Hall and Stewart re: Gun Control Message-ID: <359@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Thu, 7-Mar-85 21:18:09 EST Article-I.D.: gargoyle.359 Posted: Thu Mar 7 21:18:09 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Mar-85 07:05:01 EST References: <> <352@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <> Reply-To: shallit@gargoyle.UUCP (Jeff ) Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science Lines: 31 Summary: >> 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