>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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-wales
>>
>>I don't think that there is anything contradictory there - I simply said that I know of no-one who carries a gun for self-defence (certainly no-one would be granted a certicate for that purpose). Of the 1.8 million guns quoted in the Guardian article 80-85% are almost certainly U/O 12 gauge guns used for game shooting. I'd also estimate that 90+% of the firearm certificates are for .22 rifles used for target shooting or pest control - the remainder being larger calibre bolt action deer rifles. Using a picture of handguns in relation to this article is also a bit disengenuous - handguns have been banned for some years.
>>
>>FWIW I'm certainly not against gun ownership - I have 10 myself:
>>3 12 bore (one is actually a pump action which requires a firearm rather than a shotgun certificate) and one .22 bolt action rifle.
>>The remainder are .410 shotguns which I used as a child and still use occasionally.
>>
>>But I'm also happy to accept the gun control restrictions here.
>>To obtain either a shotgun or rifle you must prove a valid use - either land where you have shooting rights or membership of a target shooting club. Guns must be kept in an approved cabinet - double locked and bolted to the wall and you are not allowed to divulge to anyone (even family members in the same household) where the keys are stored.
>>If you have more than ten guns then the property must have an approved alarm system.
>>Ammuntion can only be purchased on presentation of a relevant certificate - on which, for rifles, each purchase is recorded. I'm also only allowed to have a maximum of 100 rounds in the house and these (and the firing mechanism) must be stored and locked seperately from the gun.
>>All licences have to be renewed every five years which involves obtaining three references from 'professionals' such as doctor/lawyer etc, completing photo id forms seperately for gun and firearm applications and an inspection of the weapons and storage arrangements by a firearms officer.
>>If you are convicted of any criminal offence the police may immediately revoke you certificates and oblige you to dispose of the guns.
>>
>>To give an idea of how strictly the rules can be enforced: Some time back a firearm officer visited the home of an MP in a rural area who owned just one 12 guage. He was away but his elderly mother said something like "I know I'm not supposed to know where the key is but you've driven a long way and I do know where he keeps it so it will save you having to come back". The MP lost his license.
>
>At 54 the only gun I've ever handled was a Lee Enfield rifle while I was in the ATC as a teenager.
> Now I see them every day but thats only because every morning I pass the entrance to Downing Street and the police there are armed.

I had a meeting at the U.S. embassy a while back and made the mistake of forgetting about half a dozen (spent) 757 shell cases in a coat pocket.
About four armed cops were called into the security area, plus a couple of marines from the embassy.
They were actually fine about it - even offered to return them when I left.
Bit late for the meeting tho :-}

>
>The only people I would expect to have guns here would be people like you. members of shooting clubs and the police.