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