"Without the gun the results would have been thoroughly buttery movie theater seats and at worst a fat lip. Yes the gun did cause this."

Causation, meet correlation. Some people think you two are one in the same...

Santa, I would also point out that there is a difference between allowing anyone who wishes to carry a gun and forcing people to carry guns in public. Your comment about "if only we carried guns everywhere" could be interpreted as such.

Now, do I think having more guns in that theater would have prevented this? No! It would have resulted in more deaths, even if just the first shooters. The guy was unstable. And, as Skittles points out, if he didn't have a firearm, how would have had a knife. Either way, he lost it and someone died. The gun isn't to blame nor the hypothetical knife. The blame lies squarely on the mentally unstable individual who used the weapon.

I am, honestly, on the side of gun control, but not banning. I believe that certain conditions should prevent a person from ever owning a gun to reduce the risk (although it can never be completely eliminated) of these incidents.

For instance, if a cop loses his job for being overly aggressive (beating someone, an unjustified shooting, whatever), he should also be stripped of his right to bear arms or, at a minimum, have what arms he can bear restricted (i.e. he can have a shotgun for home protection, but no handguns, no high powered rifles, and no carrying said shotgun on the street meaning he gets escorted to his car if he buys one and it gets locked in the trunk only to be accessed when he gets home).