Perverting the Second Amendment

If bridges were collapsing all over America and killed dozens of drivers each time, there would be predictable outrage and a push to stop the bridges falling down. If four major bridges had gone down this year alone then the public would be clamouring for the Government to do something to make things safer so people were not killed while going about their everyday lives.
Only when it comes to death by guns does it seem unacceptable to discuss how to stop more tragic deaths.
The second amendment is always mentioned, the part that protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' although the first part of that sentence is never heard, the part that states the right to bear arms belongs to 'a well regulated militia' .
From where i am sitting the arms bearers are anything but well regulated because the vast majority of the mass killings that we see are perpetrated by guns that are legally owned and the militia as mentioned was at the time the US didn't have a standing army, which it does now therefore rendering the need for an irregular army composed of ordinary citizens obsolete .
The pro-gun groups also put forward the excuse that the bad guys will get firearms regardless of laws so they need to be armed but the guns used in yesterdays slaughter were legally purchased by the killer's mother, who also died at the hands of her son, so unless you can guarantee that your guns are locked away so only you can use them, the guns can, and in this case did, fall in the hands of a mentally unstable person.
That would suggest that much more stringent regulation for storing the weapons are needed at the very least.
The next argument put forward is that if more people were armed then these kind of incidents would be stopped earlier. I have never understood the argument that the way to stop gun deaths is bring even more lethal weapons into the equation as is borne out in numerous academic studies such as the Harvard Injury Control Research Centre that concluded a study into guns and homicides that 'Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.'
The School of Public Health at the State University of New York Downstate Medical Centre School analysed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across the 50 states over a ten year period found: 'After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide'.
Another soundbite from the NRA and its supporters is that 'it's not guns that kill people, people kill people' which is true but it is people holding guns that kill the most. That's why the World Governments hand their military guns when they go into battle and not a sword or a crossbow. A gun is designed and built with just one purpose, to propel a bullet with force into a target and kill it, so a gun is a tool to perform that action so if you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger then you are using that tool for the purpose that it was designed for.  Guns don't people but we kill people with guns.
My own conclusion is that all these deaths over the decades are the weak defence of an inclusion in the Constitution that has been perverted and edited to protect a right that no longer makes any sense (the hypothetical transformation of the democracy into a tyranny) except to people who make and sell weapons and people who feel the need, for whatever reason, to own a gun and jeopardise the safety of themselves, their own families and those 20 children in an elementary school because it makes you think that if the Lanza house didn't have those guns in it yesterday, would the son have been able to do what he did with such devastating results?