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