All I can gauge this on is the North Hollywood robberies, where the police fired hundreds of and hundreds of rounds at the robbers, and hit each of them many times, without preventing them from continuing to move and shoot. Those were police firing in broad daylight, as opposed to civilians shooting in darkness while inhaling tear gas. I'm not sure it's particularly helpful to speculate about what might have been if the audience had had a few CCW holders in its midst, but I am far from convinced that it would have helped in any meaningful way.
Since you apparently feel nobody should comment on this topic unless they have experienced the same situation, have you ever had to shoot at a spree killer in a dark room full of tear gas? Have you ever been shot with body armor on while yourself firing live rounds at a target, while under the influence of Vicodin? If you've experienced both of these things I would agree you have more relevant experience than most or all of the members of this board, but if not I don't see how you're any more qualified to comment.
I'm not saying that NO ONE should talk about this, I am saying that it has overridden other topics here and that the vast majority of the comments are flat out wrong. Instead, this whole thread has digressed into a CCW, 2nd amendment argument when we should be talking about how to react in the future, the victims, etc.
I have NOT been shot with body armor on, I've been lucky in that regard. However, I have served with many Soldiers who have and all indicate that at minimum it hurts. Several others suffered as I stated previously, broken ribs, concussion, etc. There seems to be a theme that this shooter was all but invincible because he was wearing some kind of body armor, the type of which has not even been detailed.
I have engaged targets with a gas mask on, in darkness, etc. As a U.S. Army Military Policeman for over 17 years, it's kind of par for the course. I know how difficult shooting in the dark, through smoke, with a gas mask on, in full body armor, etc. actually is. That's way more than 98% of the comments on here. I've also defended myself after having been sprayed with pepper spray in training scenarios. So, while I've never been shot with body armor on, I have enough training, knowledge, and experience to refute a lot of these claims that a CCW engagement would have been ineffective at best.
Also, if I recall the facts correctly, the North Hollywood shoot out showed that they were wearing NIJ Level IIIa body armor, augmented with steel or ceramic trauma plates. They were also both fairly large physically, described in some accounts as "body builders" which does make a difference. They would have extra muscle/body mass to absorb the impact on the vest and trauma plate and stand up to it better than this guy, who appears to be of slight to moderate build.
Regardless, we will NEVER know if a CCW engagement would have changed the outcome. We will NEVER know if stricter gun control laws would have changed the outcome. What we do know is that getting shot with just about anything while wearing body armor hurts. Pain elicits a response that COULD have changed the outcome here. Maybe that's talking semantics, but far too much of this discussion makes it seem like this guy was some invincible force and that gun control laws are to blame and virtually NO ONE here knows most of the facts involve. I know what I know based on my military training and experience.