I read in another article that the off-duty sheriff's deputies were moonlighting as security guards at the theater. The theater may have very well been a gun free zone, except for the armed security guards, and therefore, this incident is not as supportive of CCW as it first may seem. (I'm guessing the theater is gun free, which is why armed security guards are needed in the first place.)
Regardless it is very supportive of CCW even if it was security. A private citizen trained with a gun could accomplish the same thing.
The "logic" in the statement above boggles the mind if you think about it. This is exactly the insanity we're faced with. Gun free zones require armed guards to keep them gun free.
Please note I am agreeing with your point. It's almost like the old Viet Nam era statement "We had to destroy the village in order to save it".