That said, the hot topic in the wake of the shooting is gun laws. The goal is obviously how to prevent mass loss of life like this from happening, and the response from the left borders on idiocy.
My initial reaction was this should be the turning point where we finally put some security in place in schools and arm a few responsible adults at each school. Hiring and training multiple armed security guards at each school would be very costly. It would be by far the easiest, and probably even more effective, to simply allow 2-5 teachers/staff at each school to carry a concealed weapon. The problem has always been that the madman comes with force and there is nothing to stop him because we have self-imposed a gun free zone at schools. The laws are so misguided. The main thing we are doing is unilaterally deciding we won't have proper security at schools. Here's one fact that liberals choose to completely ignore, even when you say it straight to their face, but it's true and very relevant nonetheless: every mass public shooting in America since 1950, with only 1 exception, took place in a "gun-free" zone. That is why I am saying the lesson should obviously be that it is time to ban "gun-free" zones (except in cases, like courtrooms and government buildings, where proper armed security can be mounted and screening measures can be enforced).
Instead, the lunatic left thinks the lesson is we need to pass more gun control laws, like to ban semi-automatic weapons. Never-mind that semi-automatic weapons are the most common type of guns in America, and there would be no way to ban them without completely trashing the 2nd amendment. Most every hunting rifle is a semi-automatic weapon. Most handguns are semi-automatic too, and can fire a clip of 5-10 bullets, and could easily be reloaded. Never-mind that it is impossible to predict who is a madman and stop every person from getting their hands on other people's guns. So called "gun control" is completely ineffective and almost always places limits on the law-abiding and is ignored by the criminals.
What I do know is that if the school principal at Sandy Hook had a gun, she'd have had a lot better chance at stopping the madman than lunging at him empty handed. If there were 3 armed adults on campus that could have responded, and the madman did not know which adult might be packing so he didn't know which ones to look out for, then I would wager that he could have been taken out near the office area before he even got to a classroom. And if he knew there were likely armed adults on campus, there is a high probability that he would not have attacked the school to begin with.