>>>>>>>>>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.
>>
>
>Ironically, the guns were bought by the gunman's mother, who was one of the victims (at her home, not the school). You wonder how she could not have known he did not have the most stable personality. One thing I read was that someone said he was autistic. If that's true. One striking thing to me is how slowly information has been coming out and the amount of misinformation. It was initially reported that the killer was the actual killer's older brother.
>
>The gun control debate will inevitably resume. IMO there will not be a ban on all or even most guns. That is just not going to happen in this country. The horse left the barn a long time ago. But I do think it would be reasonable and proper to ban assault weapons. There is no earthly reason anyone (outside of warfare) needs those -- other than to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. Maybe one of the pro-gun people here can explain the rationale to me. I am willing to discuss this reasonably.
>
>20 5-10 year old massacred -- IN A SCHOOL -- massacred. That is about as bad as it gets. I don't see how we can say "there's nothing to be done."


It still goes back to laws don't prevent those who want to break them from doing so. As this article points out:

First, Connecticut law requires a person be over 21 to possess a handgun. Lanza was 20.

Second, Connecticut requires a permit to carry a pistol on one’s person, a permit Lanza did not have.

Third, it is unlawful in Connecticut to possess a firearm on public or private elementary or secondary school property, a statute Lanza clearly ignored.

Fourth, with details on the Bushmaster rifle still sketchy, it’s possible Lanza may have violated a Connecticut law banning possession of “assault weapons.”

Of course, these laws were violated because Lanza did not own any of the firearms in question, but rather stole them, and he clearly had no regard for the law in committing his crime.

The Associated Press reports the weapons were registered to Lanza’s first victim, his own mother, according to a law enforcement official not authorized to discuss information with reporters and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The facts of the case mark one of the largest quandaries with cries for additional gun control: The guns already exist, and the criminals who have broken laws to use them have also demonstrated they’re willing to break laws to obtain them.



http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/gun-control-laws-failed-connecticut-children/

I don't think any of that proves that assault weapons should not be banned. But clearly, something other than just laws banning assault weapons needs to be done. There were many things that went wrong - his access to his mothers legally obtained weapons, the failure of anyone including the system to recognize any signs of the possibility of his doing such a thing, and more.