96 Comments - Anon221 - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 8:48 am: “Mental illness and behavior like that is just, it’s such a terrible challenge in our society. I hope we as a society can talk further about things we can do to help keep people safe, safer,” the governor said. “No easy answers, but I look forward to having the ongoing dialogue and see what we can come together as a society to deal with mental illness, deal with behaviors that are so outrageous like to try and prevent it.” Considering all the damage Rauner’s pursuit of a “TurnAround” has done to mental health providers and systems in Illinois, this seems just a wee tad hypocritical. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 8:48 am: What’s the status of those whose FOID cards have been revoked by a judge after due process for mental illness? Does anyone check to see if they’re still armed, illegally? - Linus - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 8:51 am: ==a wee tad hypocritical== I agree wholeheartedly with Anon221, and would add “insulting,” “outrageous,” and “sadly, no longer surprising behavior from this Administration.” - We'll See - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 8:55 am: I thought this would an appropriate time for the Gov to use his go to “we have a such a broken system that’s run by political insiders” line - Pundent - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 8:57 am: I don’t know if the gunman in Las Vegas was mentally ill or not. I can see how it can be inferred because no one in their right mind would do this. But at the same time this was by no means a spontaneous act. It was carried out with a great deal of deliberate planning and preparation. I do find it ironic that we would automatically label this terrorism if the perpetrator was from outside of the U.S. But when the shooter is from our own country somehow the first label we attach is mental illness. And it’s nothing but an easy way out for avoiding a rationale conversation on gun control. And shouldn’t that be part of the “ongoing constructive dialogue about what we can do to keep all Americans safer”? Between Sandy Hook and Vegas there’s been lots of time to have that conversation and it didn’t happen. There’s no reason to believe that things will be any different going forward. - Freezeup - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 8:58 am: Wordslinger- short answer is no. There are a lot of people who fall in this category. Unless there is some other reason for contact with law enforcement there will be no one going to check on them. - Swift - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 8:59 am: No Governor, now is the time for action. Get out your checkbook to get some support in the GA for banning bump stocks at a minimum before the gun nuts in the state stock up on what is likely to be a banned accessory in the future. This “let’s mourn” first attitude does absolutely nothing except allow the NRA to cut checks to legislators. Rauner had the stones to sign HB 40 in opposition to his party, and I challenge him to do it again. - Lucky Lou - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 9:01 am: There is no reason any citizen needs the number of weapons that the Las Vegas shooter owned. I know it will be very difficult to change the minds of gun advocates. If they refuse to amend the constitution, would they at least consider limiting weapons to 1776 technology? That would save a few lives. - @MisterJayEm - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 9:02 am: “Mental illness and behavior like that is just, it’s such a terrible challenge in our society. *** I look forward to having the ongoing dialogue and see what we can come together as a society to deal with mental illness, deal with behaviors that are so outrageous like to try and prevent it.” — Bruce Rauner, October 3, 2017. “In Illinois there’s been a long-time history of what I would call social service, social justice, a bigger role for government in the safety net than in many other states. I think we can drive a wedge issue in the Democratic Party on that topic” — Bruce Rauner, September 18, 2012. Due to Bruce Rauner’s deliberate and cruel actions, Illinois is much farther from “dealing with” mental illness than it was when he took office. And less safe. – MrJM - chi - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 9:05 am: How can you “have a constructive dialogue” without getting “into specific policies”? He’s dodging yet again. If 59 people died because a building exploded, do you think there’d be a waiting period before we could discuss solutions? What if they died because a plane crashed or a train derailed? Or is it only because a gun was involved that there has to be this quiet period? Can we not mourn and discuss solutions at the same time? - Last Bull Moose - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 9:12 am: Wordslinger, people with revoked FOID cards may still have access to guns. Someone else in the house may be a legal gun owner. Heard of one man who’s FOID card was revoked after he had a drunken car crash. Doctors thought it was attempted suicide. His son can still use firearms. The man continues to hunt. But archery only. - Norseman - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 9:16 am: Seems like prohibiting bump stocks would be a good place to start. - ZC - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 9:18 am: Bruce just risked an all-out insurrection among Illinois’ pro-life community. He’s not going after the gun people this year, I’ve got a hunch. - Gruntled University Employee - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 9:24 am: ===No Governor, now is the time for action. Get out your checkbook to get some support in the GA for banning bump stocks at a minimum before the gun nuts in the state stock up on what is likely to be a banned accessory in the future.=== Too late. Yesterday on Gun Broker.com at 11:00am 1 vendor had 500 bump stocks priced at $170.00. By 5:00 he was sold out, this morning they’re running anywhere from $300-$600. - JoeMaddon - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 9:31 am: So Rauner is very willing to blame mental illness, without knowing anything about the shooter, but isn’t willing to talk about guns because he wants to “take a moment to remember the victims.” Got it. - Collinsville Kevin - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 9:43 am: Thoughts and prayers, now that will really accomplish a lot. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 9:43 am: After the governor has collected his thoughts and prayers, perhaps he could carry out his Constitutional duty and enforce the law that those whose FOID cards have been revoked due to mental illness are not armed, illegally. He doesn’t even have to ask. That’s his job. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 9:52 am: This is certainly going to upset those who don’t like thoughts and prayers. - Chicago_Downstater - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 9:52 am: I don’t even know why politicians or citizens even bother talking about mass shootings anymore. The answer will always be we must wait to have a policy discussion because it’s insensitive otherwise. Then we wait until the next big shooting and it starts all over again. Personally I find it insensitive to the future victims that we didn’t talk policy now. And if we are going to say the problem is mental health and not guns, then don’t hem & haw when it comes time to support mental health programs and services. And certainly don’t hold them hostage for a political agenda. Sad; the lot of it. - RNUG - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 9:59 am: == There is no reason any citizen needs the number of weapons that the Las Vegas shooter owned. == More likely than you might think. I’m far from a gun collector. I’ve only purchased one firearm in my life; just from inheriting from multiple relatives, I have double digit numbers in my gun safe. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 9:59 am: If we’re not taking the guns from people without FOID cards, we should just get rid of FOID cards altogether. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 10:03 am: When considering grieving families, it is best if you don’t make a fool of yourself by declaring loudly to all that the death was caused by political stands you do not support. This politization of tragic death is childish and unfeeling. - Jocko - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 10:07 am: I hate to say this, but until this tragedy directly affects the children of a handful of Republican US senators and congressmen…we’re not going to have any traction. Steve Scalise was shot and he is still beholden to the NRA. - Illinois Native - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 10:09 am: I think that Rauner’s unwillingness to talk about gun control, especially any specifics, is totally understandable. It was made very clear to me during his campaign that he has “no social agenda” and gun control is very much a social issue. I think that the GA needs to take the lead in this area. - chi - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 10:15 am: =This politization of tragic death is childish and unfeeling.= So you never have and never will espouse an opinion on Chicago’s murder rate? What about fatal traffic accidents? Nuclear bombs? Why did Illinois enact a statute outlawing murder, was it because they were being childish and unfeeling? - J - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 10:19 am: Defining assault weapons and then watching the industry skirt those definitions makes a ban unworkable. Perhaps a ban on high capacity magazines would work. There are already so many of them out there it would take decades to become effective but something must be done. Any hunter who needs more than a 10 round mag is going to starve anyway so more than that is not needed. The NRA’s slippery slope/nose under the tent argument just has to be ignored. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 10:32 am: Swift- “let’s mourn” first attitude does absolutely nothing except allow the NRA to cut checks to legislators.” Once again the myth that NRA promotes the 2nd Amendment, rather than cutting deals with the opposition. In reality NRA is a self perpetuating bureaucracy that feebly resists gun control laws just enough to ensure it’s continued existence. Look at Brandon Phelps’ concealed carry bill, the whole thing was written by police unions, yet how many times did Phelps declare the name of Chicago black man Otis McDonald like holy writ. Luckily most NRA members are too stupid to read, or they would have opposed criminal penalties for every violation of the carry act, plus the public transpo ban. I predict NRA will cut a deal on some sort of assault weapons or magazine capacity ban, just like they colluded with police unions on Phelps’ carry bill. - Toast - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 10:38 am: J-2A has nothing to do with hunting. - Robert the Bruce - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 10:43 am: I’m not sure that stricter gun control laws in Illinois would have any impact. Chicago guns come from Indiana anyway. It’s up to the feds, and they didn’t get it done when the Democrats controlled the presidency, the House, and the Senate. - @MisterJayEm - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 10:46 am: “This politization of tragic death is childish and unfeeling.” Is that why VanillaMan never posts about abortion? – MrJM - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 11:04 am: If you read everything I wrote, the context explains the statement you enjoyed taking out of context. - illini97 - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 11:05 am: “This politization of tragic death is childish and unfeeling.” How do changes in public policy take place without politics? Have politicians thought and prayed any victims of mass shootings back to life yet? Has a politician ever thought and prayed the next mass shooting out of happening? Politicians make policy. We elect them to do exactly that. Why does that come as a surprise to you? I don’t elect my representatives to pray on a budget or think about capital spending bills. I elect them to engage in politics and actually establish public policy. - Amalia - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 11:21 am: jeez. mental health issues, and prosecution of gun crimes, should be a focus. but we have to do more things to stop what happened in Las Vegas. the equipment to change from semi to full automatic on guns is legal for purchase but the change is not legal. come on. NRA,step up and tell us how to prevent this. Equipment wise. this is on you as you push for more and bigger weapons as the voice of the industry that makes money, part of the MOD squad (Thank You for Smoking). - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 11:31 am: When considering grieving families, it is best if you don’t make a fool of yourself by declaring loudly to all that the death was caused by political stands you do not support. Once again - read the context. The politization of tragic events is childish and wrong when we are still burying our loved ones. Show a little compassion for those suffering shock and grief. Your “solutions” or political scores should wait. - RNUG - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 11:43 am: == I elect them to engage in politics and actually establish public policy. == OK. Let’s try to talk about public policy a bit. We need to remember that the viewpoint of Illinois citizen’s probably skews a bit more than national in favor of limits … or at least we live under more limits than a lot of State’s. I’m going to start by listing some current public policy. It’s (mostly) illegal to kill people. We’ll just note that self defense, Capitol punishment and abortion are legal. (Not intending to get into a discussion on abortion, just noting how some people consider it.) It’s (mostly) illegal to own fully automatic firearms. There are exceptions for Federal Firearms License dealers, Federal Curio and Relics license holders, and some grandfathered firearms. While it varies by State, it is often illegal for mentally ill persons to possess firearms. Some states have similar laws associated with domestic violence court orders. There is a (mostly) universal requirement of a Federal background check to purchase a firearm. Law abiding citizens follow these laws. Criminals don’t. So the question I wrestle with is what new or expanded policies and laws will have an actual effect? Is a complete ban the only solution …and, given the 2nd Amendment, I’m not sure a complete ban and confiscation would work. So what possible law or policy changes does anyone else envision as reasonable and doable? - Spoonful of Sugar - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 11:52 am: Rauner isn’t going to “Pry the gun out of their cold dead hands” Rather his legal people and the insurance industry will realize that yeah… This guy stores 25 assault weapons on the property they insure and thats a liability. Each assault weapon will cost $2400 a year to keep. Before you know it, as the years pass, the nutjobs will winnow themselves to a manageable and identifiable minority. - Tequila Mockingbird - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 11:56 am: RNUG nails it. Violent acts by violent individuals are the problem, moreso than the tools of that violence. Software vs hardware. But we can’t regulate behavior so we look for factors that can be regulated, wether it works or not. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 11:57 am: - RNUG - Thank you for a thoughtful comment that does allow engagement in a discussion on a subject needing discussing. For me, this is my beginning; ===While it varies by State, it is often illegal for mentally ill persons to possess firearms. Some states have similar laws associated with domestic violence court orders.=== “While it varies by State…” Right there. That’s it for me. The beginning. My premise is this… while states are free to do what states are free to do, the varying gun laws that each state enacts, some say are more lax, while others argue are more stringent laws. These laws are basing their mere existence as either an extension or clarification of the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. Where we seem to be as a country is “we have laws, we need laws”, but the uniformity of the laws with protection under the 2nd Amendment isn’t compromised while others are concerned what others may consider lax laws are unrealistic in a society we now live, and moving for safety isn’t infringing on the 2nd Amendment rights, frankly, of everyone, gun owners or not. We all are under our constitution, it effects us all. So, for me, uniformity, nationally, and building that uniformity for gun laws that can be understood by all as the right constraints without infringing on rights, that’s the discussion and movement is like to see and see discussed. States rights and the national constitution need some uniformity. It’s a heavy lift. Far heavier I know then I can imagine, but a discussion needs to begin. - Pundent - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 12:02 pm: =So what possible law or policy changes does anyone else envision as reasonable and doable?= That’s a very good question. I would suggest that we start by looking at how other developed nations have addressed this. Here’s a good starting point: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/ - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 12:07 pm: “States rights and the national constitution need some uniformity in regards to the 2nd Amendment and the states’ laws that vary as states’ laws do” For clarification. - blue dog dem - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 12:19 pm: Why a FOID card?. A non-resident can drive into Illinois and buy a long gun(unless that’s recently changed). there has to be statistics out there. I wonder how many captured murderers had FOID cards. Let’s have meaningful changes. - blue dog dem - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 12:23 pm: Speaking of states rights, I am curious what Nevada does. - Swift - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 12:33 pm: VanillaMan, I have to disagree with you, waiting makes absolutely no sense. Did FDR and Bush II wait for polling results after Pearl Harbor and 9/11 respectively? No they acted immediately. This is what gun violence is, an attack on us. Do you think the victims in their dying thoughts were thinking “thank God we live in a country where there are more guns than citizens and anyone can 100 round magazines and devices to make a rifle virtually a fully automatic weapon thanks to our glorious Constitution and the NRA”? Are the victim’s families expressing Bill O’Reilly’s sentiments that these massacres are the price of freedom? I think the greatest consideration for grieving families is to take steps to ensure there are less grieving families in the future. I’ll concede some massacres couldn’t have been stopped by any rule, regulation, or law, but with the Vegas incident if we had courage and stood up to the NRA and ban 100 round magazines or bump stocks we could have lessened the damage. Yes, a bad person will find a way to kill or injure, that is what we as humans seem to be very good at, but why make it easier for them to kill more? - RNUG - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 12:36 pm: == Here’s a good starting point: == I’ll start by noting the reporting / classification of firearm deaths are somewhat inconsistent, both between different states, etc. inside the US and between the US and other nations. So the comparisons are not necessarily apples to apples. I’ll also note that a number of those countries reduced their firearms by confiscation, something I don’t see happening in the US. I don’t pretend to have any good answers, just some possible areas. What could possibly happen is consistent application of firearms regulation across States. After all, the 2nd A is a national law. This is something the NRA (disclosure, I am a member) has pushed for … although they want the loosest rules possible. Maybe there could be some compromise there, consistent national rules in exchange for what would amount to more regulation in some States. But then you get down to the nitty gritty details. What common level of rules would be acceptable? One of the stickiest issues is gun registration. For all our complaints about the FOID, it kept Illinois’ from requiring every gun be registered by serial number like some States require. Would we be better off if firearms ownership is treated like a Driver’s License; issued by the individual State’s but valid nationally? Something to ponder. Purchase limits? How many and what kind over what period of time? Would it be different for shotguns, rifles and hand guns? Could something like this on a national basis cut down on straw buyers? Limits on modifications and accessories? Which accessories? Right now, I could see banning certain items, like bump stocks. Magazine capacity limit? Would the rule apply to both rifles and hand guns? And, given studies on how few police bullets actually hit the aimed at target, what is a reasonable amount? And whatever you do, how do you deal with the estimated 300M existing firearms? Like I said, I have lots of questions but no answers. - RNUG - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 12:38 pm: == Speaking of states rights, I am curious what Nevada does. == Currently, compared to Illinois’, they have almost none; pretty much just Federal law. - blue dog dem - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 12:48 pm: How about something akin to TSA pre screening. If I voluntarily agree to a rigorous background check, we don’t need as much red tape or control. If you don’t want that requirement, then an extended waiting period with the usual background checks. For new firearms, how about the planting of chips that are easily detectable in large crowd enviroments. - blue dog dem - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 12:48 pm: ….meant, will do. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 12:50 pm: ===I don’t pretend to have any good answers, just some possible areas.=== This is how the Sausage is made, my friend, you know that… ===What could possibly happen is consistent application of firearms regulation across States. After all, the 2nd A is a national law. This is something the NRA (disclosure, I am a member) has pushed for … although they want the loosest rules possible. Maybe there could be some compromise there, consistent national rules in exchange for what would amount to more regulation in some States.=== This is my thought, and as an overall package, there will be much for many to like and dislike equally and that’s how a foundation to building something thoughtful and impactful can begin. The rest - RNUG -, I concede, are issues needing discussion, but I’m not one to delve deep, as I am always learning and realize I need a deeper understanding where those parts fit into that foundation you put out there well. Good stuff. - Rod - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 12:56 pm: Pundent’s post was a wise one and RNUG asked excellent questions. Legislation relating to possession of guns and mental health is very difficult because there will always be people who carry out mass murder with no formal history of mental illness. Attempting to ban Bump-fire stocks and large magazines will fail. These things can now be made using either 3-D printers for plastic parts or with what is called ghost gun machine (a digital CNC milling machine) for metal parts at low cost using downloadable software. California in 2016 banned “Ghost Guns,” now these guns are already in the black market in Ca there made with parts from a digital CNC milling machines. - RNUG - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 12:56 pm: == rigorous background check == Been there, done that just for some of the jobs I held. Don’t see a problem with it but … need to make sure there isn’t the equivalent of the TSA “no fly” list with it’s problems. == chips that are easily detectable in large crowd enviroments. == That one I get queasy about. If it can be read remotely in a crowd, it can be read from outside your home or car. Assuming the technology to read it would be hacked (probably a safe assumption), thieves could use the same tools to target homes for robbery. - Lefty Lou - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 1:02 pm: It is unlikely that we will live long enough to see any meaningful progress in addressing gun violence. It is absurd really. The frequency of these events has only strengthened the resolve of gun advocates. There is no logical reason for citizens to be armed to the teeth like some are now. Does holding a gun in your hand really make you feel better about yourself? If so, you are likely mentally unstable and therefore ineligible. Seriously people, we don’t need to rise up against the government. If that ever happened your neighbor is likely to shoot you before you get out of your driveway. Get rid of your guns and take up golf. It isn’t totally safe but it is much better for the soul. - blue dog dem - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 1:07 pm: Lefty..I understand why the NRA exists. - illini97 - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 1:15 pm: –OW– “So, for me, uniformity, nationally, and building that uniformity for gun laws that can be understood by all as the right constraints without infringing on rights, that’s the discussion and movement is like to see and see discussed. States rights and the national constitution need some uniformity. It’s a heavy lift. Far heavier I know then I can imagine, but a discussion needs to begin.” This, to me, is the starting point for the discussion. I don’t believe that state policies work effectively when neighboring states have vastly different purchasing legislation. - siriusly - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 1:18 pm: His deflection is almost as good as Sen. Jeff Flake’s comment about what we can do to avoid being killed by people with automatic weapons “duck, get low” - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 1:24 pm: ===This, to me, is the starting point for the discussion. I don’t believe that state policies work effectively when neighboring states have vastly different purchasing legislation.=== Yep. Is as though the vastly different interpretation of an amendment to our constitution is, according to what side you’re listening to at the moment, “diluted” of “infringed” Ok. Let’s try to figure out where both diluted and infringed can be melded into a policy that clarifies and doesn’t infringe on rights but does look to where workable constraints exist to uniformity and acceptance of that uniformity. It’s a discussion, and I dunno how it would even look, but the idea states have differences is something obvious. - Tequila Mockingbird - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 1:29 pm: Where would the outrage be directed had the murderer driven a Uhaul truck loaded with fertilizer and fuel into the crowd? Gun control discussions always devolve into emotional arguments that accomplish nothing. - @MisterJayEm - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 1:41 pm: Can anyone remember what the “don’t politicize this by discussing ways it could have been prevented” time-frame was for the Tylenol murders? Hard to believe that an entire industry changed the way they did business in response to seven deaths, but they did. (Fun fact: On average, seven Americans are murdered with a gun every six hours.) – MrJM - illini97 - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 1:49 pm: - Tequila Mockingbird - “Where would the outrage be directed had the murderer driven a Uhaul truck loaded with fertilizer and fuel into the crowd?” In all likelihood we’d be having a discussion about why no one picked up on the fact that a retired, multi-millionaire accountant in Nevada would have little use for thousands of pounds of fertilizer and hundreds of gallons of diesel and why the FBI hadn’t taken a look at that. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 2:03 pm: === It’s (mostly) illegal to own fully automatic firearms. There are exceptions for Federal Firearms License dealers, Federal Curio and Relics license holders, and some grandfathered firearms.=== You cannot buy new fully automatic firearms, but those that were properly registered as of 1986are still in circulation. Private citizens can own them, and there are over 500,000 machine guns in private hands. There was a loophole that allowed trusts to purchase these without normal registration rules until 2012. Somebody accused me of harping about this earlier this week. Here’s why it matters: even these most lethal of weapons, designed and created for mass slaughter, cannot be banned. These are weapons of war in private hands, and to hear the constitutional experts on this blog, there is nothing we can do about it. Spare me another failed attempt to ban semi-automatic rifles. We can even get machine guns off the market. === There is a (mostly) universal requirement of a Federal background check to purchase a firearm. Law abiding citizens follow these laws. Criminals don’t. It’s not universal, and there is also an exemption for sales at gun shows. Gun “fingerprinting” and registration would be a sensible start to end the practice of straw purchasers legally buying weapons but “misplacing them.”   We can’t even get rid of machine guns. The gun debate makes me sick. - logic not emotion - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 2:06 pm: Per the CDC, there was one alcohol-impaired driver death every 51 minutes. https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html Where is the talk about banning vehicles? - Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 2:16 pm: Let’s say everyone agrees to a consistent application of firearms regulation across States. Same type of background checks, same kind of concealed carry, same type of limits on guns and ammo purchases. Let’s say there is discussion of the other issues and everyone comes to an agreement there as well. What happens next, meaning when all this is in place and another mass shooting occurs? Everything is cool then, or more “we need to do something”??? - Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 2:19 pm: = Where is the talk about banning vehicles? = Think of all of the drive-by shootings that would be prevented. - logic not emotion - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 2:20 pm: To Illini in response to Tequila: If he had parked that truck / trailer with fertilizer / fuel next to the venue or actually drove it into the venue and then exploded it, we would also likely be looking at a MUCH high casualty count. - Jocko - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 2:26 pm: ==thieves could use the same tools to target homes for robbery== My car is registered with the state and insured. It “could” be stolen, “could” be used as a weapon (or in the commission of a crime), heck, it “could” be used to take my own life…yet no one complains about the DMV or police knowing where to find it. - FormerParatrooper - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 2:30 pm: ——there are over 500,000 machine guns in private hands. There was a loophole that allowed trusts to purchase these without normal registration rules until 2012—- How many were used illegally? —–It’s not universal, and there is also an exemption for sales at gun shows.—- The exemption applies to private sellers, not dealers. And you know in Il that even private sellers must use the ISP site to get a control number when transferring a firearm, whether at a gun show or in their home? —-Gun “fingerprinting” and registration would be a sensible start to end the practice of straw purchasers legally buying weapons but “misplacing them.”  —- We can agree here. People who are routinely reporting lost or stolen firearms need to be investigated. And if evidence shows malicious intent, prosecuted at the Federal level, I have no faith in States like ours being able to prosecute someone fully for that crime. - Jocko - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 2:37 pm: Sorry for the multiple post 1. What about fertilizer? We have restrictions on fertilizer sales 2. What about cars? The self-driving car (and new car features) are the result of car companies trying to minimize the impact of impaired driving - Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 2:41 pm: Short of un-inventing firearms or handing creepy 1984 levels of gov tracking to our daily lives, there is nothing to prevent these types of attacks. The prohibition of objects that can be readily made in 2017 (google: home CNC or 3D printing) is security theater. - illini97 - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 2:50 pm: “Short of … handing creepy 1984 levels of gov tracking to our daily lives” We’re not there already? - Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 2:52 pm: = yet no one complains about the DMV or police knowing where to find it = Correct. Driving is a privilege, not a Constitutional right. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 2:52 pm: –Where is the talk about banning vehicles?– Probably in the dorm-room over the bong-pipe, this sort of stoner variation on the “tools” argument. A hammer can be used for its intended purpose or to hit someone on the head. A car can be used for its intended purpose or driven into a crowd. What’s the intended purpose for the converted semi-automatic, other than paint the walls red? - State Engineer - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 3:01 pm: RNUG - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 12:36 pm: Some states have similar laws associated with domestic violence court orders. Actually RNUG the Lautenburg Ammendment in 1997 made it illegal to own, possess or use a firearm if you had a conviction for a DV misdemeanor or felony. This was a nationwide law so applies to all states. Agree with the rest of your statement but wanted to point that out to you. - Rod - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 3:16 pm: 47th Ward a citizen can also make a new fully automatic firearm using existing technology and downloadable software. As I discussed above in relation to the ghost gun machine this is not all that hard and one does not have to be a gun smith to do this. Here is a video that shows the difference in the receivers, its not much https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgvaXXdzD-g I think really its like controlling illegal drugs those of us who really don’t think they are worth the risk of jail time avoid them, others pay no attention to the law. Guns, well its the same thing and equally not controllable. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 3:28 pm: ===Guns, well its the same thing and equally not controllable.=== B.S. Maybe 3D printing will change things, but you can”t grow your own AK-47 yet. - Mr B. - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 3:28 pm: I appreciate our stringent guns laws. The fact remains that most gun crime comes from illegal guns. Law creation and enforcement should start there. I am still digesting the Las Vegas tragedy. - Anon221 - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 3:50 pm: To the Update- Rauner: “I hope we can come up with ways to deal with it effectively, and I look forward to the conversation.” THIS is not a North Shore cocktail party. You can “converse” at those all you want. Try a hand at taking a real stance on something for once, instead of testing the political winds. - Rod - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 4:00 pm: I agree 47th ward you can’t grow an AK 47. But you can buy a Century Arms RAS47 AK Rifle or the Blackheart AK47 Gen 3 which are legal semi-autos that are exactly the same as the Russian Avtomat Kalashnikova and convert it just like the AR 15, that is if you are willing to break the law. There are people out there doing these things and its illegal, but well beyond the control of the ATF. That is the reality of the situation 47th Ward. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 4:02 pm: Rod, your argument is that it’s futile to have laws because some will break them. Really want to go with that? - JoeMaddon - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 4:06 pm: **logic not emotion - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 2:06 pm: Per the CDC, there was one alcohol-impaired driver death every 51 minutes. https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html Where is the talk about banning vehicles?** Sigh… for someone wanting to use logic over emotion, you sure don’t post logical comments. Alcohol, cars, and the useage of both are much more regulated than guns are. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 4:20 pm: 47th…. you really need to research consumer 3d printing and CNC mills. “Grow an AK47″… no. Push a button and create the main parts from a square hunk of aluminum… 100% yes. The prohibition of objects made from metal/plasitic will work no better in 2017 than prohibiting liquid made from fermenting cereal grains did in the 20s. - RNUG - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 4:36 pm: == you really need to research consumer 3d printing and CNC mills == Yes. The only thing holding back home production of almost anything is the current cost of this machinery. The metal working ones are already cost effective for custom production of small items. Like minded hobbyists are already banding together to buy a machine. Or an individual willing to lay out a chunk of cash. In the not too distant future, I can see home production facilities being another divide between the haves and have-nots. Just one more step in the self service economy. - @MisterJayEm - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 6:15 pm: Little surprise that commenters who can’t be bothered to pick a nickname would find regulation of firearms unduly burdensome. – MrJM - Toast - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 6:39 pm: and @MisterJayEm somehow reveals your identity ? Yes, the typical Chicagoan’s idea of regulation, like a total ban on handguns that existed until recently, is unduly burdensome, as is a ban on any weapon millions of people currently own with no negative impact on your life whatsoever. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 6:49 pm: === and @MisterJayEm somehow reveals your identity ?=== Pseudonym - a fictitious name, especially one used by an author. - @MisterJayEm - is known, and respected, and also has a heck of a Twitter. His writing here is known, his writing here is owned by his Pseudonym. - @MisterJayEm - is anything but “anonymous” - Blue dog dem - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 6:49 pm: To the update. I didnt know what a bump stock was til this happened. I will give soon to be ex gov Rauner time to digest. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 7:01 pm: My previous comments were made because I was attempting to present facts for the discussion. Offering those anonymously neither detracts nor contributes to the merit of my arguments. - RNUG - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 7:11 pm: -State Engineer- Thanks. Wasn’t aware there was a national law on that one. Heck, it’s tough enough just staying on top of Illinois law on one or two subjects. - Toast - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 7:34 pm: Anonymous - not identified by name; of unknown name Until he, and you, and everyone else on here starts using their real name, they are, in fact anonymous. Regarding your ideas, they do have merit, but they will never fly. Blue states (or more specifically, blue cities like Chicago and NYC) will never acknowledge the rights enshrined in 2A, and red states will never agree to the draconian restrictions that blue states will insist upon. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 7:39 pm: Interesting analysis on the inability to do anything about guns on the national level. Basically, rural small states have wildly disproportionate power in the Senate. Fifty senators from the 25 smallest states — half the Senate — represent only 16% of the U.S. population. Give it a think: California, pop. 39.3M, two senators. Wyoming, pop. 586,000, two senators. I doubt the Senators or legislatures in those small states will be looking to amend the Constitution to change their advantage. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-the-majority-keeps-losing-on-guns/2017/10/04/edc5729a-a943-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.d2963bd534f9 - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 7:41 pm: - Toast - “Mark Twain” To the ===never=== you throw around, thousands of laws change all over the country in all 50 states. What is true is by doing nothing, “never” becomes possible until it isn’t. Never, always, every, only are rarely accurate in speculation. - Toast - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 7:58 pm: Yes, Mark Twain, and we all know his real name. So, are you part of the “just do something” crowd, or do you have specific ideas? You always seem to avoid the hot social topics, but have chimed in on this one…sort of. Surely you have an opinion. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 8:01 pm: –So, are you part of the “just do something” crowd, or do you have specific ideas? You always seem to avoid the hot social topics, but have chimed in on this one…sort of. Surely you have an opinion.– You could enforce the Illinois law and remove the guns possessed by those who have had their FOID cards revoked by a judge due to mental illness. I’ve written that three times now. Struggling with the reading comprehension? - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 8:10 pm: ===Yes, Mark Twain, and we all know his real name=== … but wrote under Mark Twain In the last 36 hours I’ve been told I comment on “everything”, now I avoid things, what’s next, I avoid things I comment on? Can you read? I stated where I begin and how I’d proceed. It wasn’t “do something” or obtuse or a dorm room thought. Many times, if you’d read here, there’s really smart people commenting here, those I know by reading them, they know more about pro-life/pro-choice issues, taxes, guns, and believe it or not, actually reading other people, I learn far more that I could ever pass on to others. So, you complain about all us “Mark Twains” and that you want people commenting, who actually did, or that people don’t comment because learning a thing or 8 is smarter than trying something foolish to just type something. I made a comment, went back, even engaged where - RNUG - took it farther. Keep up - Toast - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 8:14 pm: That would be because you are stating the obvious, few would disagree with that statement. I’m talking to OW. - Toast - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 8:41 pm: You offer no specific proposals, you only dance around issues with your cute haiku’s that really don’t say anything because you don’t want to offend anyone (unless it has to do with Rauner, of course). Its not “diluted or infringed”, its those who are only interested in taking vs. those who wish to be left alone. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 8:55 pm: - Toast - ===So, for me, uniformity, nationally, and building that uniformity for gun laws that can be understood by all as the right constraints without infringing on rights, that’s the discussion and movement is like to see and see discussed=== ===States rights and the national constitution need some uniformity in regards to the 2nd Amendment and the states’ laws that vary as states’ laws do=== You skipped all that, but reading doesn’t seem to be something you’re willing to do. One law, one new law, one different thing, that may not be enough if things are different in North Carolina versus North Dakota. ===You offer no specific proposals, you only dance around issues with your cute haiku’s that really don’t say anything because you don’t want to offend anyone=== Nah. Good try. Plus, if you do read people like - RNUG - who can walk around the pensions or - Louis G Atsaves who can explain workers comp, as two immediate examples, what can I add that they can’t answer? Same with - Emily Miller -. I know more than her on expertise? It’s knowing you’re smart enough to know you don’t know enough. ===Its not “diluted or infringed”, its those who are only interested in taking vs. those who wish to be left alone=== No, when talking about constitutional rights, people seem to be engaged and say how they feel people may be effecting those rights. Those aren’t passing words either. - Blue dog dem - Wednesday, Oct 4, 17 @ 9:16 pm: This debate(?) Is happening all across America. I still rhink more of those affected than trying to find answers…but that is an individuals perrogative. Last night,Joe Biden gave a wonderful speech on political discourse. It starts with respect. I really dont think that could be said for many on this blog on this topic. Sorry. But read many of the posts this week. Its why,in my opinion, nothing will get done. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.