As folks say here in Texas, "You're plumb eat up with the dumb@$$!"
With their anti-gun rules, criminal accomplice, Cinemark, guaranteed that the gunman (primary culprit -- I agree) could proceed unopposed until he ran out of ammo or got tired -- whichever came first.
Granted, the madman was armored and helmeted. However, the shock of a round striking a helmet is a BIG, disorienting distraction. And civilian body armor transmits sufficient force to cause intense pain and injury. (Google "backface trauma" and "backface signature injury" for verification.)
Even with nothing more than a 9mm, a competent shooter could have drastically shortened that madman's murderous rampage. But that option was denied by the criminal Cinemark policy...
Cinemark and its "no guns" policy simply concentrated the law-abiding as a mass victim target -- and did nothing to impede the lawless monster from wreaking havoc.
Following SUSSA’s excellent example, I want to admit that I worked from erroneous information (that Cinemark has a corporate “no guns” policy), and (especially in my #48) went WAY ‘over the top’ in my comments.
I retract and apologize for my mischaracterization of Cinemark and its policies.
Now, I will do a search to find the source of the misinformation re Cinemark. (I’m certain I read it online — possibly at FR...)