Just like more concealed-carry wouldn't have stopped this. Freak events like this are just that: freak, and shouldn't be determinant of policy. The only good thing here is it helps, just maybe, to convince people that maybe it isn't a good idea for just anyone to have access to an AR-15, but everyone can agree that there is little that would have stopped this: no-one could have John McClained this guy no matter what people think, while he seemed perfectly capable of devising homemade explosives that he could have used in lieu of easily accessible guns.

While you make a valid point.... it doesn't change the fact that he was able to kill those people with no resistance at all. Sure someone could have accidentaly shot another theater goer but they were already shot by the perpetrator. Either way they were shot. I personally would rather have the chance to defend myself than be killed  with my hands in front of my face in submission. This was chaos and the only one who was able to take advantage of it was this wacko and it was like shooting fish in a barrel. Could imagine that saying being true ifvthe fish had guns?

As for your assertion that people are being killed in alarmingly high numbers, you are just wrong hombre. The murder rate has been going down steadily since the 90s (funny enough the Playstation came out around this time) where it was over 9 per 10000 (in the 80s it was over 10!) murdered to less than 5 per 10000 in 2010. Its the perception brought on by the 24-hour news cycle that has perpetrated this idea that more and more people are killing.

Mass murder, genocide etc. are nothing new in the history of humanity. Banning guns for the average citizen won't change that. It would only serve to make those who follow the laws and respect their fellow citizens rights victims of those who do not.

what im always stuck by, is how people who love gun control, especially those in the media, love saying buzz words like "high-powered" assault weapon" military style"semi-automatic (this media loves confusing full auto, with semi-auto)  etc.

but in reality this "high powered assualt rifle" AR-15, is functionally no different than most hunting rifles, its just that the AR-15 looks "scary," so it should be banned

in fact this gun is significantly more deadly than....

this gun:

Yeah I agree, good post. Nothing could have stopped this, it would have been just a fluke if someone happened to be concealed carrying a handgun and got him before he killed anyone. 

But there is really no reason to outlaw AR-15's just because they look like a military weapon. They're single shot and less deadly than a lot of other weapons out there like an AK-47 which you can own if it's not fully automatic, and semi-automatic hunting rifles which can be huge calibres. The only thing I would like to see banned are 50/100 round drums, I think 30 round magazines are all you should be allowed. In Canada you're only allowed 5 shots on a rifle which is retarded, but saying you need an 100 round drum for target shooting is bullshit. Something like 20-30 sounds fair to me. 

Thank you! Finally a reasonable person. Just because it looks military style like an M-16 people think it's more deadly. There are way more powerful/deadly weapons that civilians can have. 

but i 100% disagree with you about 50/100 round magazines should be illegal.

they should be perfectly legal, in fact him using that 100 round drum magazine saved a lot of lives. see,  high capacity drum magazines are prone to "jamming" because packing all those rounds of ammunation puts a lot of stress of the spring in the mag, and it often mis-feeds into the gun, causing lots of jams. the shooter had a jam, and being the untrained, inexperienced shooter that he was, he had no idea how to fix the malfunction. that saved numerous lives.

@killerzX

Good point, I guess there's a reason why soldiers toting assault rifles use clips and not drums. That being said, the new AK-12 clips are 60 rounds. This is an awful lot of rounds per clip, do you think these should be legal?

What people think is that strict gun laws will stop gun related crimes. But all gun laws do is take them away from those who will use them responsibly.
I'm not saying if people in the theater were armed this would not have happened. There needs to be strict penalties for illegal ownership.

btw, not sure if you guys know this. I live in Toronto, and there was a mass shooting at our eaton center mall right at the heart of downtown during the day (in the afternoon/evening). This happened about a month or so ago. Anyway, there was this woman who happened to be at that mall and survived the shooting by making a simple ordinary decision that put her away from where the shooting happened (where she initially intended to go). She wrote in her blog that she felt lucky to survive that incident. Now, can you believe that this very same lady happened to be at the theater in Colorado for that shooting as well. She unfortunately got killed the 2nd time around. But my god it is such an eerie story. Can you imagine how slim of a chance that was, to be in 2 separate shootings like that in a span of a month. Her "survival" blog has gone viral since her death. it's a really sad story.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1229429--jessica-redfield-victim-of-colorado-theatre-shooting-was-also-at-eaton-centre-shooting

Yeah I saw that on the news. Really eerie and sad. Although I have to admit it made me think of the Final destination movies when I heard about it.

Still very sad.