In response to:
Again, I am not here to debate you on gun terminology, but please tell me if you think one of the possible solutions to these types of mass killing tragedies is some level of gun control, and if the answer is yes, then wouldn't it make sense to start with weapons that are capable of killing the maximum amount of people in the shortest amount of time?
If the answer is no gun control, then what as a responsible person is the answer?
There are now calls from the Left for gun control legislation in response to Adam Lanza's unconscionable mass killing of innocent children at Sandy Hook Elementary. However, very few people seem to be asking the most basic question of all before getting started: What gun control legislation could have stopped Adam Lanza?
The answer is "none."
Let's consider a few alternatives:
1) The school was already a "gun free zone;" so obviously that wasn't effective. Of course, the sort of people who would respect a "gun free zone" in the first place are the very ones you wouldn't have to worry...
We do that by allowing lawful armed carry in most places open to the public,and allowing armed school employees.
We can't afford having police or armed guards in every school,at every entrance,nor everywhere in public.
Having armed teachers (and other school employees)is like having plainclothes police scattered all around the school,at no cost. it's the smart thing to do. The same goes for armed citizens in public places.
If there are laws against murder that Mr Lanza didn't care about, what makes you think that Mr. Lanza gave a rat's butt about a gun control law?
For the criminal element desirous of a high body-count nothing will stop them, no law imaginable can, however an armed, trained, knowledgeable CCW holder might have.