I've been waiting for some discussion of the fact that Connecticut has draconian gun control laws, proving that such laws don't work. From Reason Magazine:
Although Friday's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School has prompted renewed calls for reinstating the federal "assault weapon" ban, we know for a fact that such a law would not have stopped Adam Lanza or made his attack less deadly, because it didn't. The rifle he used, a .223-caliber Bushmaster M4 carbine, was legal under Connecticut's "assault weapon" ban, which is similar to the federal law that expired in 2004. Both laws, in addition to listing specifically prohibited models, cover semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines and have at least two out of five features: 1) a folding or telescoping stock, 2) a pistol grip, 3) a bayonet mount, 4) a grenade launcher, and 5) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor. The configuration of the rifle used by Lanza, which his mother legally purchased and possessed in Connecticut, evidently was not covered by that definition.
... the term assault weapon was invented by the anti-gun lobby as a way of blurring the distinction between military-style semiautomatics, which fire once per trigger pull, and selective-fire assault rifles, which can be set to fire continuously (a distinction that President Obama, who wants to bring back the "assault weapon" ban, either does not grasp or deliberately obscures). Since that neologism has no meaning independent of the laws that define it, there is little sense in saying the laws should be changed to cover more "assault weapons." Guns are not "assault weapons" until legislators arbitrarily decide they are.