The Piers Morgan article in a mildly conservative British paper is actually pretty good:
If you want to pretend that gun free zones are the reason that someone can go on a shooting spree with a semi-automatic weapon then you really need to think about why it might be that you are so much more likely to get shot here than in the UK.
The example of the President is a good one: Despite all that heavy security, several Presidents have in fact been shot. As he is in a position to know something about this, maybe we should ask James Brady? Similarly the comparison to cars is good: Our Chargers are subject to lots of regulation, taxes, and need insurance; you might even say they are "well regulated"...
The debate quibbling over exactly what sort of gun was used is really a sideshow, of the kind usually used by partisans who want to make a false argument from authority, based on terminology. In any case, the gun in the car was apparently just one of the other
weapons that Nancy Lanza owned. The Wikipedia article is quite clear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_H...chool_shooting
As it turns out, the weapon used was
very similar to other recent big shootings (such as against the firemen, and in Aurora). However, even if the exact definition particularly matters to you, it's still a distraction because the average six-year-old probably doesn't care precisely what sort of gun is being used to murder her classmates.
Finally, here's a question for you: Do you think that Nancy Lanza's guns made her feel safer (at least before they were used to kill her)? Do you think that they really did make her safer?