I'm sure this will come as a shock to some, but my belief is...
The answer isn't less guns, but more!
I've already stated I think it would be a horrendous situation to be in, a crowded, dark, smoky movie theater with someone shooting and people running and screaming in all directions. I would say there are numerous reasons as to why not to take a shot at the culprit, but there is one really damn good one as to why a person who is armed and capable should. It would have likely stopped the threat.
Had there been several armed citizens in that theater who took action against the threat, it would have seriously changed the outcome.
As stated, this guy was not brave, and the mere sight of a few muzzle flashes in his direction would most likely have caused him to go on the defensive and run. He does not strike me as the type to engage in a firefight, he is one of those gutless individuals who will only act when he has the advantage.
Yes, as I have stated there are very good odds of hitting an innocent individual, but those persons' lives were already threatened by the shooter. How much more lethal would it have been with a person returning fire? Some would say double, I for one argue that it most likely would have stopped the slaughter much earlier.
Sure, I can think of numerous reasons why returning fire wouldn't be the best choice in this situation; but the truth of the matter is that it still would have been the only choice.
Most Americans have this inability to think beyond the "winner-loser" perspective, probably because we as a society are so sports-fanatical; but sometimes there just isn't a solution ("victory") to a problem but merely facts that must be endured and dealt with. This was one of those situations...
Cheers! M2