I'm not a gun person. They scare me. They are a tool designed to do one thing- kill. I've fired them, but I don't like them.
That said, I understand the reasoning behind owning a gun. It is one's right to protect their family. Fine. But does one need an assault rifle to do that? No. That seems extreme to me.
Another thing that disturbs me are Open Carry laws. I sincerely don't understand why anyone feels the need to run to the grocery store with a pistol in their pants. It happens on a weekly basis here that someone comes into the store, and we get customers running up saying so and so has a gun. It freaks people out, me included. I don't feel safer knowing that some random guy is walking around with a weapon that can kill me, and I have no way of stopping that from happening.
What I would like to see are strict renewal processes for gun owners. I say this because the people that go on killing sprees are people that are frequently using legally obtained weapons. Seniors have to retake their driving tests here every four years (I think)- so why can't gun owners be required to take mental health tests every four years for relicensing? Fail the test, and you have a year to get your stuff together, or face losing the privilege of owning a firearm for good.
In the case of the CT shootings, the weapons were his mothers'. My understanding is that she worked very hard to raise her sons, and to provide Adam with the care he needed. Of course she had no way of knowing that he would kill her and then kill 26 other people. But she did know that he suffered from a form of autism that frequently includes a lack of empathy and social awkwardness. It seems foolhardy, and a little selfish, that she would keep so many weapons around that he obviously knew how to access. I am not saying that because of her son's condition, she loses the right to own weapons. What I am saying is that she should have taken extra precautions.