Yes, folks equating crime with weaponry and weaponry with anyone having them are, for all intents and purposes, fearful that anyone could become criminal merely for having access to such weapons. Anyone actually seen carrying a firearm, for example, is a particular target of their ire.
And, yes, such thinking is fractured and short-sighted, at best. When it results in their overt, active attempts at forcibly altering the law in contravention of the Second Amendment's protections to harm the ability of citizens to bear arms, it becomes an outright attack on liberty that goes far beyond simply having a concern for "children."
I, too, mourn the innocent victims of such senseless murder sprees as Newtown (and others). But jumping all over those seeking to protect themselves and these innocents won't accomplish a damned thing. Deep down, I think these liberty-hating people understand that, but I also think they simply don't want to face that reality, 'cause that reality dictates citizens will indeed remain armed and able to withstand predation. And it'll mean they will continue to see such citizens armed. The baseless, knee-jerk fears that prompt such political lashing out won't accomplish anything but extending the free zones of fire for criminals (who will wholly ignore prohibitions against guns, just as they ignore prohibitions against murder/robbery/rape) and emasculating citizens in the face of criminals. Disarming victims does little but create more victims.
IOW: their efforts are misguided, at best; harmful in the extreme, at worst; pointless, no matter what else is true. Going after criminals and crime would be far more effective with respect to criminals and crime, than going after armed citizens who seek little more than to thwart crime. Sadly, I doubt many of them will ever get that.