In yesterday's scenario, yes, I would have to agree. You've got a small, very crowded, dark environment mixed with tear gas, a shooter dressed in riot gear (when a lot of the crowd is dressed up for the movie), and mass panic. In this situation, it's hard to say anything short of a full SWAT team on site immediately would have really helped. That's not an argument for tighter gun control.
The notion of disarming a civilian population really does not sit well with me. There are plenty of situations where knowing not only how, but when to use deadly force is appropriate and will save more lives then simply waiting for Uncle Sam to come rescue you (see my above post). He's not always going to come around in a timely fashion.
In a world where criminals are willing to kill, tighter gun laws are not going to be much of a deterrent. Just look at how the "war on drugs" has been working out. If criminals want guns, they will have guns. I at least want to be on equal footing and not a severe disadvantage if there comes a time (rare that I hope it to be) where me being armed could have saved the lives of innocents.