12 killed, 58 wounded in Colorado theater shooting (+video)

Suspect was former med student

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • one day... South Jordan, UT
    July 21, 2012 11:32 p.m.

    to wrz about your comment at 9:06

    Wow! I don't like Obama but you are nuts my friend, every single President since I have memory have done whatever they want! Politicians here and any other country work for their pockets, This is not about Obama only, is about the one who came before him and all of them! what a lame comment.

    No guns, no weapons for civil use! period

  • wrz Salt Lake City, UT
    July 21, 2012 9:06 p.m.

    @the truth:

    "You seem to forget that a few colonists with peashooters defeated the mightiest army..."

    Peashooters? No, they had muskets and cannons... same as the British. The armies seemed to be well matched. The British navy didn't account for much. And the 'mightiest army in the world' was fighting on foreign soil, don't forget. The war coulda gone either way.

    "...and do you really believe there would not be any in the military who might also rebel against a tyrannical government?

    Tyrannical government? We have one, as we speak. The president thumbs his nose at laws he vowed to uphold when sworn in. He lets illegals flood into this country (who will rule one day and soon). He has given us unwanted government healthcare. He's sending our jobs overseas (GE bailout) by the hundreds of thousands. He's spending us into debt oblivion. He has refused to salute the American flag. We have tyranny now. Where's the militia? This and other issues too numerous to mention are what'll bring our system down. A militia packing muskets, peashooters, or AK 47's is a joke. It's a different battle to save our country now.

  • one day... South Jordan, UT
    July 21, 2012 8:50 p.m.

    The intent of the 2nd Amendment in the 1700's was far different than the interpretation that is given to it now. 12 people are dead from guns that were bought "legally". If there was ever an arguemnt against the same of guns to anyone, it is this incident. There was never a gun in my house and there has never been a gun in any house in which I lived. And for that I am truly thankful. God bless my parents for not being id**ts.

  • one day... South Jordan, UT
    July 21, 2012 8:25 p.m.

    I you like to shoot and kill like hunting and keep a weapon, you have serious issues, it's all about feeling superior and empowered. hunting is not a sport, is killing. Since when whe should feel good about taking somebody or something else's life! that's wrong and insane.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    July 21, 2012 5:32 p.m.

    RE: wrz

    You seem to forget that a few colonists with pea shooters defeated the mightiest army and navy in the world to free themselves from a tyrannical king.

    States also have tanks and jets, and do you really believe there would not be any in the military who might also rebel against a tyrannical government. The military is the people. And what good would a battleship do them if was controlled by someone not loyal to the "king"? or against land locked states?

    The Founding Fathers wanted an armed citizenry as final check and balnce, that is a historic fact.

  • wrz Salt Lake City, UT
    July 21, 2012 5:14 p.m.

    @the truth:

    "They believed an armed citizenry was the final check and balance against a tyrannical government."

    Which isn't very practical these days... since the government owns such as nukes, ICBM's, battleships, B-52's. etc. Can you imagine the citizenry waging a battle with a few 6-shooters, AK47's or UZi's? In fact, if you showed up at the Capitol in D.C. with a gun you'd likely be arrested and thrown in jail.


    "They (the Court) wrote in DC v Heller: (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

    Baloney! The Second Amendment says no such thing. It says 'the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED.' Period. Says nothing about any types of arms or who might be excluded.

    If the Founders envisioned an exclusion, 'arms' might be limited to a militia, which is defined as a civilian military force... and it has to be a well a 'well regulated militia'... not deer hunters, or causal target practice shooters.

    The Court Justices seem to think they are gods, as we can see by your cite and by the recent Obamacare decision.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    July 21, 2012 1:34 p.m.

    How horrible. Your family members go out for an evening of entertainment in what is supposed to be a relatively safe society - it wasn't like they were going sky diving or cliff diving - just to a movie. Many lives will never be the same.

    Quickly the battles begin over gun rights vs. gun control. I personally feel we have a right to bear arms. I think it is too easy for a disarmed society to fall victim to dictatorial regimes. All that being said, I think we have grown numb to violence. Film makers do a great job with special effects of portraying very violent scenes where no one really gets hurt and I feel that in consequence, we have a generation now growing up seeing extreme violence as a kin to entertainment where wrongs are avenged through bloody reprisal and in the end, they roll the credits and turn up the lights.

    All the gun laws in the world won't restrict criminals bent on savagery. Each crime prevention device only encourages cunning to over come them. Our only real hope is to restore the moral code that we traded in for irresponsibility.

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    July 21, 2012 9:09 a.m.

    As a combat veteran, I find it disturbing some people think this could have been stopped or lessened if someone in the theater had a concealed-carry permit and in fact would have been carrying a gun.

    1. How do you know there wasn't somebody with a handgun?

    2. How are you certain it would have helped? I mean, hundreds of people running, screams, teargas, and shooting. It's not a simple scenario.

    3. The man was wearing body armor. A lot of it.

    I can tell you there are at least a dozen other factors for someone to deal with in a situation like this. I have been there, and it is a frightening thing. Fear and adrenaline mix, panic sets in. On top of that, that is only a generalized scenario. Every situation is different than others, and there is no guarantee anything will ever work out. I know if was there with friends and family, even with my handgun, my first priority would have been their safety, not trying to get off the 'perfect shot' in all of that confusion.

    If you weren't there, then you have no place saying what you would have done.

  • DaveRL OGDEN, UT
    July 21, 2012 6:50 a.m.

    When I came to comments my intention was to offer my condolences to the victims and their families , this was such a tragedy, but then I read comments EPJ, procuradorfiscal, cjb and ute alumni, I was horrified . To blame this on video games, the lack of signs at the theater or even the lack of more weapons in the audience and liberals goes beyond insensitive.
    I've been a hunter both gun and bow all my life and I don't own any assault rifles nor does my older brother a life long, now retired Marine. Never felt any good reason to own one, the few guys I know who do own them I wouldn't trust them to use them safely. All of my sport hunting friends don't own any either. We don't need more people carrying guns or laws on video games, and certainly we don't need a shootout in a dark, smoke-filled theater full of innocent adults & children, this is not the Wild, Wild West. We do need more control on assault weapons and the type of weapons that are meant to kill large numbers of people.

  • LeftBehind SAN FRANCISCO, CA
    July 21, 2012 6:14 a.m.

    In 2004, Congress let expire the assault weapons ban. The shooter used assault weapons. Is it possible to have a rational discussion in this country about why assault weapons and large capacity magazines are necessary?

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    July 20, 2012 10:22 p.m.

    He's in his early 20's and very bright. I suspect schizophrenia or a similar mental disorder. I think Holmes is knows what he has done--he doesn't know right from wrong. There really isn't much we can do about this kind of tragedy. Even with strict gun laws, Holmes would have been able to get guns. There are just too many of them around.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    July 20, 2012 9:06 p.m.

    Re:the truth
    "Our founding fathers did not want any weapons banned from citizens,"


    Not even the Conservative Justices on the Supreme Court believe that.

    They wrote in DC v Heller:

    (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

  • one day... South Jordan, UT
    July 20, 2012 8:55 p.m.

    What a tragedy, My heart goes out to the families of the victims.

    Once again no matter how you justify what happened I say no guns or weapons for civil use! police and military officers only! this is not the 17th, 18th or 19th century! this is the 21st century! no guns, no permit, period! I'm sick of hearing about how people justify having weapons, I used to hear from my grandma "guns are carried by the devil" plain and simple.

    How many tragedies do we need to see before we take action and remove weapons from our streets!

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    July 20, 2012 7:26 p.m.

    Our founding fathers did not want any weapons banned from citizens,

    They believed an armed citizenry was the final check and balance against a tyrannical government.

    NO wonder the socialist, communist loving left want to always ban weapons.

    They love big government tyrannical micromanaging control over everyone and everything. and they always use any opportunity to dis arm the citizens, so nothing can stop thier big government utopia.

    We must stop having knee-jerk reactions to traumatic and rare events, it serves no one.

  • Pendergast SLC, UT
    July 20, 2012 7:20 p.m.

    It is anyones guess as to why this happened but several have said this was an aberration (Including the Gov of Colo) to which I agree.

    Gun control laws would as some suggest would control spontaneous events. However, the shooter was a smart & disturbed individual. In cases such as this; desire trumps any attempt at prevention.

    What amazed me is how much cash that violent media rakes in as reported on Entertainment Tonight.

    I like how officials are trying to derail the court of public opinion. Until we find out why he was dismissed from school, I think any speculation as to why this happened is moot.

    What gets me is Geography. Columbine then this.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    July 20, 2012 5:46 p.m.

    Gun control is not the answer in its entirity. I agree that certain weapons should not be able to obtain over the market. The normal criminal will not be able to get such a weapon. However, there are those who have access to any weapon known to man that they can get their hands on.

    A suicide bomber is just as difficult to stop as person who wants to go out and kill. This appears to be a pre-mediated, well planned attack. The weapons were bought at three different stores to throw off suspicion. I do believe that a data-base of who buys a weapon and what weapons have been bought is a good idea. I also believe that certain laws need to be enforced but are not. Carrying a concealed weapon is no more the answer than controlling who has access. Some would like just the police to have guns. Unfortunately, then the criminals and the police have them. No one is protected. Hunting is still legal in this country and is in some ways a way of life.

    You can't control something just by laws themselves. Someone like this gentleman will always be there.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    July 20, 2012 5:40 p.m.

    The AR-15 is not an assualt rifle. It is a semi-automatic rifle that is really not good for much except to kill. Secondly, although the AR-15 itself is not an assualt weapon it can become so in a short time through a trained gunsmith. The AR-15 is the civilian made M-16 assualt rifle. If you have listened or watch the news each of the guns used in this trajedy were purchased legally. Statistics can be made to swing whichever way you want them to swing.

    I've owned an AR-15 and know its capacity. It is a beautiful weapon for killing anything you want to. All of the states with strong gun control are basically your liberal controlled states. I do agree though that no one really needs to own a weapon that can be changed in a short time to a fully automatic assualt weapon. However, the biggest problem is that guns do not kill in and of themselves. Someone brought up that a child was killed because of a loaded weapon. This is the parents fault not the gun. Someone has to load the weapon.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    July 20, 2012 3:55 p.m.

    I would imagine with several people having concealed weapons shooting at each other in the confusion would just bring more death.
    Concealed weapons in a mass shooting like this isn't a solution, it's a bigger problem.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 20, 2012 3:37 p.m.

    Re: "There's no reason that anyone reasonably needs access to an assault rifle."

    That train left the station years ago.

    There are already millions of what liberals would disingenuously describe as "assault rifles" in the hands of Americans. There is no possibility, whatever, of removing them all from circulation.

    That means criminals will, ALWAYS and FOREVER, have them.

    The only question open to debate is whether we will be effectively and collectively disarmed, prevented from defending ourselves against predation by criminals who will inevitably be armed with "assault weapons."

    I [along with most Americans] vote no.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    July 20, 2012 3:22 p.m.

    ATl134. No I could not wait. The BRA makes gun possession a political issue 24 hours day 7 days a Week 365 days a year, and they don't forget Leap Year. Nothing ever gets done because the politicians we elect are too afraid of the NRA and their scoring schemes. Look at Jim Mattheson's vote on the Holder contempt issue. He was so afraid of the NRA and Utah gun nuts that he could not vote to object to what was a clearly partisan action.

    We hear all the condolences, but they will never be enough. We need action to limit access to weapons that were designed to kill people. You can't always identify criminal, terrorists, and crazies, but you can pass laws restriction possession of weapons of mass destruction. And, that includes AK 47s and the like.

  • LivinLarge Bountiful, UT
    July 20, 2012 2:19 p.m.

    Sad and tragic...obama was quick to take public and government employee credit for the success of all U.S. businesses, is he willing to take responsibility for all the murderers that use the same roads and have the same teachers. Somebody tell obama and his supporters that there is an x-factor in success, and it's not the government.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    July 20, 2012 1:31 p.m.

    A down side of gun laws is that they add luster to gun ownership. Guns provide a means to a feeling of personal empowerment. That helps drive the market for firearms. A gun can make a weak man feel powerful, a timid man a bit bolder, and a desperate soul a menace to his fellow man.

    New gun laws can’t fix that. Intelligent legislation might help alleviate parts of the symptoms here and there but the sickness runs much deeper than the reach of law.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    July 20, 2012 12:55 p.m.

    Dr. David Hemenway, director of Harvard Injury Control Research Center noted in his book, "The time Americans spend using their cars is orders of magnitudes greater than the time spent using their guns. It is probable that per hour of exposure, guns are far more dangerous. Moreover, we have lots of safety regulations concerning the manufacture of motor vehicles; there are virtually no safety regulations for firearms manufacture."

    Such an approach to injury prevention has been applied to every product Americans come into contact with every day, except guns. And as is the case with motor vehicles, regulation could reduce deaths and injuries associated with firearms.

    Comprehensive regulation could include: minimum safety standards; bans on certain types of firearms such as "junk guns" and military-style assault weapons; limits on firepower; restrictions on gun possession by those convicted of a violent misdemeanor; heightened restrictions on the carrying of loaded guns in public; improved enforcement of current laws restricting gun possession by persons with histories of domestic violence; more detailed and timely data collection on gun production, sales, use in crime, involvement in injury and death; and, public education about the extreme risks associated with exposure to firearms.

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    July 20, 2012 11:43 a.m.

    how about outlawing killers? novel approach. where is the outrage of the antigun libs when their own government is selling weapons to criminals?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    July 20, 2012 11:32 a.m.

    The five states with the lowest per capita gun death rates were Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far below the national per capita gun death rate of 10.19 per 100,000 for 2009. Each state has strong gun laws and low gun ownership rates. By contrast, states with weak gun laws and higher rates of gun ownership had far higher rates of firearm-related death. Ranking first in the nation for gun death was Louisiana, followed by Wyoming, Alabama, Montana, and Mississippi.

    On his 2002, gubernatorial campaign website, Romney declared his support for "the strict enforcement of gun laws" as well as "the federal assault weapons ban."

    In his 2003 budget, Romney proposed tripling fees for gun owners to obtain ID cards for firearms and to obtain a license to carry a firearm. Fees got quadrupled.

    "I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don't believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal." Mitt Romney then signed a bill outlawing assault weapons and small handguns in Massachusetts.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 20, 2012 11:26 a.m.

    Theories as to why this happened so far...

    1. The guns
    2. The video games

    My guess - Anti-Depressant SRRIs meds.

    But for right now, until the facts get in -- it's anybody's guess...

  • Trooper55 Williams, AZ
    July 20, 2012 11:23 a.m.

    It's a shame that people lost their life and were seriously injured. There needs to be more control on certin type of rifles sold and a longer wait time to get them. I believe that people have rights to own and carry weapons when they have the permit and a through back ground and a mental evaluation done. You could have all the Law Enforcement Officers in the world and when you can't see what is going on because of the smoke you can't defend the people. I also believe that their were officer of the law there, they caught the person too quick. This case doesn't need to be tried in the paper, but in a courtroom where the defended gets a fair trial. Too many are quick to want to place the NRA or viedo games at fault. I have noticed that since parents rights to punish their children the way they see best was taken away by the system their has been far too much volient crime of mass killing, by the younger people of our country.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    July 20, 2012 11:08 a.m.

    Murders happened long before guns were invented. Now that guns are here the only difference is the choice of the weapon.

    Think that mass murders such as this can't be carried out with old time technology? Better think again. An assailant with either a knife
    or a sword can kill a lot of people in a short amount of time especially in a crowded place such as this theater and the knife or sword doesn't run out of ammunition or emit a sound to warn others to take cover, or to escape, or to take action against the assailant.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    July 20, 2012 11:07 a.m.

    The National Rifle Association does not own the 2nd Amendment although they act like they do. It belongs to all of us and the NRA does not speak for me. I’ve been a gun owner since I was thirteen when my dad bought me a .22 rifle. I’m descended from Mormon settlers who came West in covered wagons bringing their guns with them and they didn’t even have the NRA! How on Earth did they do it?

    I’ll tell you how they did it. A gun was a tool for them as much as a shovel, ax, or plow, something they used when needed. It wasn’t a play toy, a status symbol, or something to twirl on their fingers while fantasizing that they were Wyatt Earp.

    I’m sick of the gun culture in today’s America. Know what? There’s always been a gun culture in this country and it didn’t used to be anything like it’s become in my time.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    July 20, 2012 10:57 a.m.

    A similar situation happened in Utah several years ago at Trolley square. I got my carry permit at the time as a result. I don't know if Colorado allows conceiled carry of weapons, but I do believe that had either a police or a citizen with a gun been in the theater at the time, many lives would have been saved.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 20, 2012 10:56 a.m.

    Remember when batman just slugged it out with (funny looking) people who seemed to want to rob banks? He's changed, like our culture. We worship violence a lot more now.More and more this is how it manifests itself.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    July 20, 2012 10:43 a.m.

    So what you are saying is, people should have brought MORE guns to the movie theater (where guns are prohibited.) The vigilante fantasy that the Zimmerman's of the world seem to have about how they will be the hero one day by taking down a gunman are ridiculous. Guns aren't to blame for this tragedy, this guy is. But the guns helped. There's no reason that anyone reasonably needs access to an assault rifle.


    Tooele, UT
    Re: ". . . NRA . . . logic flawed."

    Yeah, here's the logic anti-gun liberals are selling -- the solution to the slaughter of powerless, unarmed innocents is to force us to have MORE powerless unarmed innocents.

    Great logic.

  • Wayne Rout El Paso, TX
    July 20, 2012 10:19 a.m.

    I am sorry this happened.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 20, 2012 9:53 a.m.

    The NRA can do their thing but my problem is with people like MItt Romney who support them. I do not agree the reasoning that we should arm everyone. Too many bad consequences. Case in point a two year old died recently from playing with a loaded weapon.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    July 20, 2012 9:42 a.m.

    What a horrible tragedy.
    My son attended the premiere last night, getting home just after 3 am when the movie ended.
    My heart goes out to the families of the victims..


    I think it might be a good idea for the media to adopt a policy whereby they do not publicize the perpetrators name or picture.

    Ive never seen a sign anywhere stating concealed weapons are not allowed.

    We should bring back the Brady bill, an assault weapons ban, (like they have in MA) a waiting period for gun purchases, and close the gun show loopholes etc.

  • Rational Salt Lake City, UT
    July 20, 2012 9:17 a.m.

    "It was the worst mass shooting in Colorado since the Columbine High School massacre on April 20, 1999. Students E.H., 18, and D.K, 17,"

    It is irresponsible to print the name of mass murderers who did it, in part, for glory and recognition.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 20, 2012 8:34 a.m.

    @EPJ, MikeinCederCity, Aggielove, and procuradorfiscal

    Couldn't be bothered to even wait 24 hours before making this political and blame-placing could you?

  • kiaoraguy Provo, UT
    July 20, 2012 8:30 a.m.

    EVERYONE- please show some discretion, put a hold on the accusations and let's avoid the blame game until some real time has elapsed- time and place, time and place....

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 20, 2012 8:16 a.m.

    Re: ". . . NRA . . . logic flawed."

    Yeah, here's the logic anti-gun liberals are selling -- the solution to the slaughter of powerless, unarmed innocents is to force us to have MORE powerless unarmed innocents.

    Great logic.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    July 20, 2012 8:08 a.m.

    Wow, epj. Did you just make a political statement out of this, even before the smoke has cleared, so to speak. But okay, just to clarify, you blame the video games.

    This is a tragedy, it's almost unthinkable that a young man would do something like this. But it's all too common anymore. My heart goes out to everyone and their families that were involved. Especially to the children that were victims. How horrific. Expecting to go have a fun evening and then for this to happen. Very sad.

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    July 20, 2012 7:57 a.m.

    Your insightful.
    The video games are a major issue. But, there's no way to control that industry.
    It seems that way at least.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    July 20, 2012 7:54 a.m.

    Once again the NRA and gun nuts will spout their nonsense about not letting this incident be a reason for reasonable gun control. EPJ, your condolences are not enough. And your logic flawed. This mass slaughter will continue until this foolish country wakes up to the stupidity of endorsing weapon control policies advocated by the NRA and their gun loving sycophants.

    How many more lives will be lost before we do something about controlling automatic and large capacity firearms?

  • EPJ Grantsville, UT
    July 20, 2012 7:22 a.m.

    Terrible tragedy! My condolences to all those who have lost loved ones.

    It is inevitable that this comment board will include more about gun control. Efforts at gun control must focus on identifying individuals who are unstable, then make sure they are not allowed access to weapons (not just guns, but all weapons). Violent video games and other forms of violence portrayed in the media are not benign to society. There are those few who are deeply influenced by violence, and attempt to act out what they have witnessed time and time again onscreen.

    I wonder if the movie theater had a sign posted on the front doors stating that no concealed weapons are allowed inside? If that was the case, (and I do not know), but if that was the case, . . . the policy only restricted those who were law-abiding concealed carry holders, . . . law-abiding individuals who could have ended this before it became a massacre.