You are misunderstanding me, but I'll come back to that. 10 people in that theater, randomly distributed, will have fields of fire greater than the one assailant's. And they will likely miss at least on one shot. I don't see how that is really debatable. Furthermore, body armor means that it is likely for return fire to be effective. It is not a fact that leads to the conclusion that it is better to do anything in particular. To suggest that saying a gun might not be effective means I think it's better to let terrorists kill people is just snarky.
The point I was making is that an idiot with a gun in the same room as a psycho with a gun is not an improvement. And I think we can all agree America has no shortage of idiots. Furthermore, that there can be more than one solution, potentially being a more effective solution than the one original.
That is why IMO, gun control should partially come in the form of stringent requirements on training. Hell, I abhor our absurdly terribly lax driver's license rules. I would have no problem running through an extensive several week course before I was allowed to take a gun home. If George Zimmerman had had one, maybe Trayvon would still be alive.
I do agree with you on some points and disagree on others. For example if we use the highly scientific dateline experiment after VT then it's easy to show armed people won't help right?
However there's a HUGE difference between simply having experience shooting a gun, and having experience shooting a gun in practical situations. Going to a range =/= drawing and firing from your CC holster. If you don't do that, of course you're going to be clumsy with it.
Body armor does fail, and I said in a previous post it doesn't make the wearer invulnerable either. You still have the blunt force trauma, just not the penetration. So even if you're wearing kevlar and get shot, you're gonna feel it, it's gonna hurt, and you're probably going to the ground. Even then most vests are simply rated for small caliber pistols and or melee weapons.
For example the vests we had at one of my services were level II.
People don't think of it. People run away. It's in their nature. Only the rare few act. The guy who shot his AK at the White House wasn't tiny. Just one guy was nearby and happened to be one of the few. And he was quickly joined by another guy. That really isn't indicative of anything other than, most people run away. Zebras run away from lions too, even though they outnumber them. But, it is a possible, and probably more effective response than to have 7 or 8 people return fire on this guy. He can only point his gun at one person at a time. 5 people jump him and he's going to the ground unless he's a professional wrestler or football player. That is not to say I judge those who didn't jump him, or that the scenario of his using his home made grenades would not have been even more tragic. But there are other responses than shooting back.
After saying all that, I would definitely rather have a gun if I were in that situation. I might not use it, I might opt for the tackling. Or might only think I'm one of the few and not one of the runners. I don't think I'd leave a member of my family behind, that leaves me to find a solution.
Like it's been pointed out these people are crazy, they're not stupid.
VT shooter blocked escape from the door.
Colorado guy most likely was firing on exits because they're choke points.
(and granted both of these situations didn't have any armed resistance)
So when you're in a situation where you ARE likely to get killed or shot, without effective means of escape, then what's the risk in trying to take down the shooter? You have a high likelihood of death or injury to begin with, trying to escape in that situation I think is actually somewhat more dangerous.
To the bold; that's what the amendment process is. The 2nd amendment is a change to the Constitution. The 18th was also, as was the 21st (the Prohibition ones). I hardly think I need to respond to the Germany comment but I will anyway. It wasn't gun control that got 6 million jews killed.
The bill of rights are generally considered much different then most of the amendments. The bill of rights were introduced the same year the constitution itself was ratified. The constitution wasn't amended further for over 100 years.
Also I'll argue I legitimately own guns for my personal protection. Ask ANY law enforcement officer and they'll tell you, they're purpose is crime prevention and investigation.
The presence of police helps to deter crime, however it doesn't stop crime.
Sometimes police happen to be in the right place at the right time, however most of the times they're not.
Police can't normally stop robberies, murders, rapes,etc.
It's simply not possible for them to be everywhere all of the time. I feel that in the unlikely chance that something should ever happen (again I doubt it will,and I hope it doesn't) I feel it's my own responsibility to protect myself and my family.