he may have been in body armour, but unless he was a fully experienced, shot at many times in body armour, he, like 98.7% even in body armour would be distracted to defense mode. Maybe not so good for the one shooting at him, but it would most certainly have distracted him and very likely with a different ending....hopefully for the better.

While there are some issues I disagree with from the NRA, I do support not allowing the government to push gun owners into an ala carte scenario. Yes, this time it is for "assault weapons (to be defined) and then the next one and the next one. Once allowed to start dictating what guns to have or have not where does it stop?

As soon as the anti gun or the non gun supporters or those indifferent to gun laws understand that "gun control" is for the law abiding citizens.....AND ONLY THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. All others will get their guns the same way they do today.

As for "gun control" eliminating the nut jobs like the one in CO....it will not deter them from KILLING one second. Their objective is to KILL....they do not need a gun to do that. How many of our military have been KILLED in Iraq and Afghanistan by a rag tag bunch of nut jobs that do not have, have no desire to have and proven they don't need a gun to KILL!!!!!

The sooner more people address the real issue of why do some of these folks flip and turn to killing. That requires a lot more involvement into sorting out differing people and that is not very politically desirable. While GUNS is a very desirable political subject.....however let's just watch and see just how much we hear from the candidates about :gun control"....don't hold your breath.....the vote is much more valuable tha addressing the problem....business as usual.

Go after the ones who kill and why....the cop out position is laying the blame on the weapon or method they chose to use. Does nothing to solve the problem. NOTHING!!

btk