>>>>>>>>In a huge win for gun-rights groups, a federal appeals court in Chicago Tuesday tossed the state’s ban on carrying concealed weapons and gave Illinois’ Legislature 180 days to craft a law legalizing concealed carry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>“The debate is over. We won. And there will be a statewide carry law in 2013,” said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://www.suntimes.com/16951312-761/federal-appeals-court-tosses-state-ban-on-carrying-concealed-weapons.html
>>>>>>>>http://www.scribd.com/doc/116435469/7th-Circuit-Court-overturns-Illinois-concealed-carry-ban
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It just never stops. Does a month go by without one of these news stories?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/14/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yeah..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2
>>>>>
>>>>>Both are horrible, but there is a big difference between those two stories. In the China attack, it says "22 wounded." The Connecticut shooting currently says "about 20 dead."
>>>>>
>>>>>Tamar
>>>>
>>>>Oh. That's OK then.
>>>
>>>No, of course not. Neither is okay. But wounded by a knife isn't dead. It's possible that some of those 22 will die, but I'm pretty sure that none of the 27 in Connecticut will come back to life.
>>>
>>>Guns make it too easy to kill and we need to do a better job of keeping them out of the hands of those who would use them offensively. Yes, they might get other weapons, but they'd have a hard time killing so many so fast with those other weapons.
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>That's the key. It will never be accomplished. No gun law will prevent it.
>
>I'll point out that, once again, this tragedy was committed with legal weapons. The argument against stronger gun control laws is always that criminals will get guns anyway. Maybe so, but we should at least consider the possibility that if this young man hadn't had easy access to guns, most of those who died wouldn't have.
>
>Tamar

It would be entirely in bad taste at this point, especially since she was a victim as well, to point out that the owner of the legally obtained guns kept them in some manner that her *supposedly* known unstable son could access them. Information is changing, and will continue to do so for some time, but the one of the victims here *may* hold a lot of responsibility as far as making the weapons available. That is assuming, and it currently looks that way, that she knew her son was unbalanced in some way. We still don't know though. Having written that, it is still true that anyone who wants to obtain a weapon illegally, can. It is more difficult to obtain a weapon legally. That doesn't mean that we should not have strict laws dealing with the purchase of weapons or an entire ban on assault weapons, but that those laws won't have any effect on whether or not criminals will have them. I am a believer of gun control, just not prohibition.

It appears the shooter tried to purchase a weapon earlier in the week, but was denied:

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

Additionally, it also appears he went to the school on the 13th for some reason and got into an argument with some of the staff members.

*appears* because some of this may turn out to not be accurate.