As this Connecticut kindergarten tragedy unfolded, there have been conflicting and erroneous news reports. The latest I've heard is that the shooter's mother actually was NOT affiliated with school where the shooting occurred, nor had she ever taught there.

Earlier reports stated that although the shooter came to the school with 3 guns, he had left the "assault" rife in the trunk of his car, and that everyone had been killed with the two handguns. Most reports are now stating that EVERYONE was killed with the "assault" rifle, and the handguns hadn't been fired. No idea how the reporting could have gotten so conflicted, as either the "assault" rifle was found in the trunk of the car, or it was found with the shooter where he killed himself inside the school.

But here's something else that's being missed by not just those calling for a ban on "assault" rifles, but those who think such a ban wouldn't lead to a ban on virtually all firearms:
It's the first blow (or first fired shot) that begins an "assault" on anything or anybody, and it has nothing to do with from what type label we attach to the weapon.

Not only can a knife or a hammer be used as a deadly "assault" weapon, but so can a shotgun that is normally used for hunting birds. Ironically, the best defense against any "assault" is typically going to be a firearm, hence the real solution to making society safer SHOULD include more firearms rather than less.

Most of us recognize that the real problem is the person rather than his chosen weapon of assault. But what happens when this fact is mostly ignored as too much of the blame is placed on a particular "label" of weapon? First, those particular labeled weapons are getting "banned", which in this case is probably going to include those labeled "assault" and/or "automatic" and/or "semi-automatic".

Then what happens when the deranged people continue to perpetuate mass killings by simply using some other weapon, device, or tool capable of even worse carnage?