thanks for this, neighbors!

Kudos to this group of concerned citizens. Please pass on to our elected leaders that I, for one, will not support them in the next election unless they have demonstrated
significant efforts towards reducing violence in our society.

There are limited ways to prevent gun violence.

1) Take away everyone's weapons, including kicking down every door in the naton and searching for hidden caches in the yard, chimney, attic, etc. Along with bannning the sale, manufacture, etc of all guns.

2) Lock up all ppl deemed 'mentally challenged'
3) make possession of a gun a capital offence, i.e. life in prison or death

That's about it. There were murders before guns were invented. There will be more down the road. We all know of poor folks who have been slashed, hammered, beaten to death. No guns involved. So what is the real solution? You tell me.
But it's not taking away law abiding citizen's rights. This reminds me sort of of how WSPD deals with vagrants or vandals at the train station: They chose to lock it up, leaving tax paying law abiding citizens to freeze out in the cold while they wait for a train to the city. POOF! problem solved, no more vagrants in the train station. Really, are you guys this dumb/lazy?? Come up with real world solutions, please!!!

What a bunch of anti 2nd ammendmint losers with a lot of time on their hands! Focus on keeping your kids out of gangs, criminal activities and pay attention to them instead of neglecting them to go off on your anti gun agendas! Kids these days solve their problems with guns due to lack of good parenting and gun education.

When some people think "boy, things have got to change", this group took action! Wonderful story! I look forward to the Patch keeping us updated on this group so we can all learn about what we might be able to do to help get our voices heard. Well done!

Just say no to the gun culture in the U.S. Do not be afraid to resist the "constitutionally oriented" responsible gun owners that are contributing to the demand for weapons.

I wish this country spent more time discussing mental health issues and proper diagnosis and treatment (as evidenced in both the Colorado and Connecticut shootings) as it has ways to circumvent the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment for law abiding citizens.

Without my taking a stance, I wonder if a gun-rights advocate could please explain something to me: Why are people who favor gun-control "anti-Second Amendment?" You both agree that Americans should be allowed to own some types of firearms, save for the very, very rare person who wants to ban all guns. And you both agree that the Second Amendment has some restrictions on what arms it protects your right to bear, unless you support private ownership of SAMs, napalm and battle tanks. Isn't it true that all that you're really disagreeing on is where to set the line, not a black-and-white "pro- or anti-?"

It is wonderful to see a group of neighbors working together to address an issue that has become all too common in our city of Chicago and across the country. Not once did anyone mention revoking constitutional rights - in fact they candidly said they were gathering many ideas of how to get the gun violence issue under control. As Katherine Willis Pershey is quoted "it is a lot more complicated than just gun legislation" should show that this is not an organization that is just looking to strip US citizens of their second amendment rights. To sit idly by and continue to watch tragedy after tragedy unfold in this country cannot be the answer though. Thank you for representing me, a Mom too, on this very important issue.

I guess critical thinking is something that the good people of this town seem to lack. Why the rush to ban guns? Why the rush to put steeper controls on what is a protected Constitutional Right? Lets just look, oh, I don't know, about 10 miles to the east of us, The City of Chicago banned handguns for decades. Yes, decades. How well did that work out? Take a long hard look at the facts and the statistics just for the City of Chicago. How well did that ban work? How well did it work? Easily a couple of hundred gun-related murders a year. In a city where guns were banned. A couple hundred, for every year of that ban. So, before we get all touchy-feely about how great our fellow citizens are, Take a look at the real facts. Sandy Hook occurred, not because of the presence of the guns. Hedaiya Pendleton was killed, not because of the guns. The incidents occured because of the people in the possession of the guns. Did you ever think of it that way? I know, and have known many gun owners in my life. Every one of them was a decent, law abiding person who only wants to be left alone.

Sandy Hook, Columbine, The Aurora CO, theatre shooting, Killeen, TX, have one thread in common. They were perpetrated by someone who was mentally ill. Now, tell me, what are we going to do about that? What about the dangerously mentally ill in this country? Taking the guns away from everyone else, is NOT a solution to the problem. Try thinking once in awhile, folks.

No one here has said what you claim, "taking the guns away from everyone else." And no one here has said that a complete handgun ban is a solution - much less THE solution. This is not a black and white issue. The solution is not to take everyone's guns away, nor is it to arm everyone without limits. The debate, therefore, lies in where the line is drawn.
Again, resorting to insults doesn't help solve any of our ills. It diminishes the debate.

Ensuring that purchasers don't have a criminal or psychotic history, waiting periods, asking firearms dealers to inventory their stores, limiting firearms purchases in a given time period, firearms registration, etc., are all part of a real debate, a constructive conversation about common sense measures. Inflammatory baseless claims ("rush to ban guns") and personal attacks ("critical thinking is something ...seem to lack") demonstrate an unwillingness to listen.

Even if you have something constructive to say, when you surround it with ignorance, you won't be heard.

What do you all think of this: I feel that there are really 3 types of violence issues in which people use guns.
1) Gang banger types. Here, the real problem is the drug trade. Ppl in it don't give a hoot what the laws say. Just like prostitution and gambling, which are both illegal, the need will still exist and be filled illegally. So, what do you think can be done?
2) Mentally ill ppl committ most of the mass murders out there like Sandy Hook, etc. What do you do about them?
3) Pure evil. I think of Columbine. I think of that crazy Muslim Ft. Hood shooter, Hassan. Usually driven by ideology. I don't think much can be done to stop these lone wolf types esp. since they usually end in suicide, so the shooter really wants to do as much damage without remorse. What can the Moms propose about this?

Thank you.

These arguments are nonsensical. Just because there aren't ways to 100% prevent something from ever happening again does not make it unreasonable to take common sense measures to make our children safer. I find it disgusting that it is not controversial that my 3 year old now has drills where he has to practice hiding in a closet in the event that he hears "loud, popping noises," yet even having a discussion of limiting access to the types of weapons that were developed for the military is off the table. My right to life supersedes your "right" to have a personal cache of military grade weapons. We tout the first amendment of free speech, yet there are laws against yelling fire in a crowded theater. The second amendment should be no more special than other amendments that have limitations on them for public safety.

Frank Luntz (no friend of the left) took a survey http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/17/is-the-gun-lobby-invincible/nra-members-vs-nra-leaders that found 3 out of every 4 N.R.A. members favored a system that required all prospective gun buyers to pass a criminal background check. In addition, large majorities of N.R.A. members support employee screenings at gun stores, mandating reporting of stolen firearms, prohibiting people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms and prohibiting violent misdemeanants from receiving permits to carry concealed guns. These measures are not in place in most states and are vigorously opposed by N.R.A. leaders and lobbyists.

Elizabeth. Just because I, my friends, or other private, law abiding citizens have a "cache" of "military style weapons" (by the way I LOVE that terminology, makes you sound so smart... where did you hear that? Good Morning America?) does not mean, in any way, shape or form, that we are proponents of violence. Can you get your mind around that? All of the gun owners that I know, are not violent, mean, or nasty people. Gun ownership does not equate violence. Violence comes from the person who possesses the weapon. That person's lack of conscience, impulse control, anger management, or whatever, is what causes these acts of violence. The gun is not the reason for the violence. Everyone of you seems to gloss over the fact, that it is the human being, the culture, that is the cause of the violence. Taking guns away does not mean that violence will come to an end. We have laws that have made drugs illegal. Does that stop the people who take them? No, of course not. So, what on earth makes any of you think, that if guns are outlawed, the criminals are all going to say "Oh my, look, they outlawed guns, we better not use ours...." When I explained Newtown to my kids, (oh, and by the way, I was sickened and outraged like the rest of you) I explained that some people are just evil, and unfortunately, we cannot stop all of them. If this is about violence, and stopping it, then lets come up with real world solutions on how to prevent further violence.

Our nation has nearly 20 times the average rate of gun-related homicides than other industrialized countries according to the United Nations. Should we do something about that or nothing at all? I would argue that we should do something.
Somewhere along the way, the second amendment, its primary purpose being to enable citizens to form a miliitia in the case of a tyrannical central government or foreign invasion, has resulted in a present-day average of 88 guns per 100 people and very high murder rates from guns. We have checks and balances built into our government which prevent tyranny and police departments and central intelligence agencies to protect us from domestic and foreign harm. I think common sense should urge us to re-examine the amendment for what it has done for our country.
By the way, why would a law-abiding gun owning citizen need an assault weapon or high-capacity magazines?

Tim,

What about my right to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I think that supercedes any right to own guns. Hell, someone wrote that it's not the guns it's the people that are bad. Well true, the guns don't fire themselves. A person has to pull the trigger. Still waiting for the news report where someone with an assault weapon defended himself and won. We can take those away, don't you think? They serve no purpose other than for military use. And if you are one of those yahoos that thinks they need them to defen yourself against the government, your nuts. Your gonna lose. This is another case of the one bad actor ruining it for everyone else. No one else, may be saying, but I'm for repealing the second amendment. It serves no purpose.

Though I am aware that many gun advocates would like to blame the bulk of the gun violence on the mentally ill, I believe it's the morally ill that are the greater problem. America's fascination with the macabre and gruesome is feeding its cavalier attitude toward violence. We need to examine what was available through the media and games 25 years ago and compared it to what most Americans see and hear daily (TV show, the news, video games, online activity) in the present. Being desensitized to the graphic and lurid, in my opinion, is a major factor in our violent society. That being said, I do feel we need to take measures to reduce the deaths from gun violence and if it means passing stronger laws and regulations on guns, then so be it.

Mr. Metzger,

Though we disagree about gun legislation and the intent and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, I am struck by this statement: "We live in a society, where the littlest slight, perceived or real, is an excuse for a violent reaction." This is precisely why I believe that sensible limitations to civilian weapons are so critical. As I said in the article, it is a complicated issue, but legislative reform is one small but important part of the healing of a broken culture.

In response to Tim's talk of the problem coming from those that illegally obtain guns, let's not forget this gentle soul: James Yeager, CEO of Tactical Response, a firearms and tactical training company, is catching heat after he posted a fiery video about gun control. In it, he decried the Obama administration’s efforts to crack down on weapons and made a shocking proclamation about efforts to curb firearms, pledging, “If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.” http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/11/tactical-response-ceo-goes-ballistic-over-obamas-gun-control-plans-if-it-goes-one-inch-further-im-going-to-start-killing-people/.