>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you talking about the scary looking weapons ban from the 90's? If you ban scary looking weapons, everyone is safer? Which gun was the scary looking one in this case - the bushmaster? Yes it is scary looking.
>>>>>
>>>>>I heard another cowardly liberal bozo calling it an automatic on CNN yesterday.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>We aren't getting anywhere here, are we?
>>>>
>>>>I will give it one more shot, so to speak. Do you have a defense of the kind of weapon that shot up the school? I apologize if I do not know the correct nomenclature for it.
>>>
>>>I prefer to have defense against it rather than disarming all but the criminals and hoping that the gub-mint will protect me. I'm sure you think banning bad old guns will work - probably as well as banning drugs and alcohol has worked.
>>>
>>>The gub-mint did not protect the people in the school. Lots of gub-mint laws were broken by the perpetrator (gosh - and that didn't stop him). The gub-mint showed up apparently after the killing was over.
>>>
>>>A defense would have been properly trained and armed people in the school providing their own defense (far quicker that waiting for the police).
>>>
>>>Had their been properly trained and armed people (preferably concealed so they aren't easily picked off in the opening moments) in the school, the issue might have been avoided altogether.
>>
>>Bill, I don't know what the solution is - but if you have reached the point where schools need to be protected by armed marksmen there must something seriously wrong with the system.
>>
>>I'm trying to work out why, when in the UK no-one feels the need to carry a gun for self defense (including the police), it should be felt neccessary in the U.S.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Mike (cowardly liberal bozo)
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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."
>
>
>This story seems to contradict your view. Apparently, there 1.8 million guns licensed in the UK and the numbers are rising, not falling:
>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/25/gun-ownership-firearms-certificates>
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/police-research/hosb0511/hosb0511-tabs?view=Binary>
>Numbers seem to differ, this site states 3,400,000:
>
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/england-and-walesNot like you to grasp at straws. Are you really trying to equate our level of gun crime and the USA ?
