Because as we all know, rocket propelled explosives are the ONLY thing that can deal with body armor. And for the record, yes. People have the right to defend themselves. I doubt that armed civilians would have helped the situation much. It was a loud, dark room filled with tear gas. This guy was prepared. No amount of sidearms or gun control would have changed that.Carnagath said:According to the more recent reports, the guy was wearing full body armor that included throat and groin protection, so he was obviously well prepared for the fact that someone in the audience might be armed. What you would have done if you were in the theater, is die. Maybe if you were armed with an RPG you would have taken him down though. Americans really should start selling those in Walmarts, after all YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF.Squaseghost said:Well If I were in that theater, I know I'd have shot him down.STENDEC1 said:Queue all the conservative Americans who'll claim that this attack is in no way a just cause for tighter gun control. Rather the opposite. After all, if everyone had guns you'd have less shootings wouldn't you?
It's times like these I'm extremely pleased to live in Australia.
Also, your argument makes you look like an idiot. And you don't strike me as an idiot, so please don't make such foolish statements so carelessly.
Also a side note. The type of body armor the gunman wore is important to whether or not armed civilians would have made a difference. Not all body armor is made equal.