Wait... You mean to tell me this homicidal shooter didn't pay attention to the no firearms sign? What?? I'm shocked!

I have never understood the point of restricting law abiding citizens that would actually follow the rules, from legally carrying handguns into an establishment. It is one of the most illogical things I've ever come across.

Probably wont after the media goes after guns.

The guy was in full tactical gear with bullet proof vest and helmet. A CCW might have been ineffective and ended in death.

It's the premise though.

The guy walked into a theatre where firearms are prohibited.

Now, would he have done the same if he knew that everyone in the theatre was armed?

His quick and silent surrender with no shots fired on police makes it clear that he had no desire to die or commit suicide, he wants attention. Therefore, walking into a theatre full of armed people would have not served his goal.

Sir, I think you have a good case for a full refund from the last school you attended.

From a preventative standpoint, I completely agree. That's why I enjoy living in Oregon where we can open carry, and with a CCW, can open carry almost anywhere we want.

It would have slowed him down for sure, however with his gear you would have likely drawn his attention and unless you put one through his grape you would likely become a victim. I doubt it was a bullet proof helmet. This is one reason that if you are going to exercise your rights to carry then you should be very good with your weapon. Of course no one says you have to be the hero. You could try your best to get away. That is a split second decision that you really have to go with instinct.

In the state where I live you can carry into an establishment (except for bars and government buildings) even if there is a no weapons sign. If the business management finds out you are carrying then they can ask you to leave and you must oblige or you are trespassing but if they don't know then you aren't breaking any laws. So basically if the movie theatre was in my state then you could carry in even though it is posted that you cannot. Hard to say whether or not it would have made a difference. From all initial reports this was a thought out and planned attack. In fact I think the police did a hell of a job by getting him before he did even more damage. There were likely several hundred or more in that theatre.

Why do you have such a hard-on for me? Do I need to think about open carrying on this forum, too?

I enjoy my constitutional right to bear arms, but sometimes you need to think things through before you pull your piece and unload into center mass. The guy had full tactical gear. You may have been able to pull off a knee or hand shot, but it was dark, there were people screaming and running; and oh yeah, the gunman had an AK-47.

I think the best chance might have been during his reloads, but even then it would have been a tough shot.

I think you misread my quote... I was saying that the chance of becoming another victim was pretty high. And helmets don't necessarily have to be bullet proof - they are rounded to reduce penetration.

And the cops arrived on scene to see the gunman standing at his car, essentially waiting to be arrested (according to the most recent reports) - we can not rely on cops to defend ourselves.

What sucks is that on a ton of other forums throughout this country, someone is saying, "Would NEVER have happened if guns were prohibited in this country! Down with guns!"

I'll never understand it...