Arizona police say gunman kills 5, then self

[depakid]

Source: AP

LAKE HAVASU CITY, Ariz. — Police say a gunman entered a western Arizona home and fatally shot five people — including the mother of his two children and her boyfriend — before fleeing with the kids to Southern California where he killed himself.

The shootings in Lake Havasu City late Saturday occurred as 23-year-old Deborah Langstaff and friends were celebrating her boyfriend's birthday. Police said Sunday that the alleged gunman, 26-year-old Brian Diez, had fathered a 4-year-old and a 13-month-old with Langstaff.

Lake Havasu City police Sgt. Joe Harrold says Diez was arrested Aug. 13 for violating a protection order Langstaff had against him.

Authorities say Diez fatally shot himself early Sunday at a residence in Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. The children were unharmed.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jsfxjJYQygA_bb516CTX8bi5Km3QD9HTFJ8G0

[MichaelHarris]

1. IMPOSSIBLE!

Everyone in the gungion knows guns are never used in mass suicides.

[DongHa69]

5. Can you provide a link as to who said that?

[MichaelHarris]

6. hey

did you find how many times a CWP holder stopped a mass shooting yet?

[Twillig]

7. But, If they had a car, they could have stopped it.

Cars kill more people tha.....

Screw it.

[DongHa69]

8. I thought so

you can't provide a link and your the one who made the claim about CHL holders, you find the stats.

[shadowrider]

17. You're new here, so, here's a primer

When dealing with an anti-gun person, keep these in mind:

1. A statement of fact regarding guns that can't be refuted by an anti-RKBA results in being called names. The name caller then departs the thread.
2. When an anti-RKBA person makes a riduculous statement, they usually, but not always, quote the VPC or the Brady Campaign to Reduce Gun Violence. YOU will then be challenged to refute the statement.
2A. If you do refute the statement with facts, links and common sense, you will be told (pick one):
2AA. You are quoting a right-wing hate-mongering site
2AB. You are mis-interpreting the information
2AC. Your information has not been peer reviewed
2AD. THEIR information is from the VPC or BCTPGV and therefore you are wrong
2AE. IF you do use VPC or BCTPGV stats to disprove them, you'll be told you're misinterpreting the facts.
3. They will take the results of 2AA, 2AB, 2AC, 2AD and 2AE, dismiss them, and again tell you to use facts from a REPUTABLE website (i.e. one that doesn't fit any of the above).
4. When you do find a site, such as FBI, DOJ etc. to refute them, see #1.

[Hoopla Phil]

24. Classic!!!!

[shadowrider]

33. Feel free to use it if you'd like (but credit where credit is due) n/t

[Callisto32]

28. You, sir, have become my internet hero.

[shadowrider]

34. See #33 n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. Would someone kindly point out this one to Mr. Harris?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=336873&mesg_id=337156

Pearl High School. The principal stopped a spree killer before he went to the junior high for Act II.

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. And while you're at it, remind him of the question in post #5

His reply was somewhat citation-deficient...

[cleanhippie]

25. FOR FUCKS SAKE! YES, YOU HAVE BEEN PROVIDED THAT INFORMATION ALREADY!!!

[Euromutt]

26. Yes, but those don't count.

I couldn't tell you why not, because Michael won't explain his reasons for discounting them. Me, I'd surmise that in Michael's book, evidence that proves him wrong ipso facto never counts.

[Euromutt]

27. So your answer is "no," then

As in "No, you can't actually cite an example of anyone in here ever claiming, or even insinuating, that firearms are never used in murder-suicides." And the reason you can't cite an example is because nobody ever claimed that, and you're just making shit up. As usual.

[Lightning Count]

11. It is impossible.

How did he get around that protection order?

[virgogal]

2. Good riddance Mr. Diez.

Poor kids.

[xchrom]

3. Recommend

[Twillig]

4. Fucking douchebag.

Before you kill innocents just put the gun in your mouth and pull the trigger!

Far less shame in that.

(edit: improper spelling of douchebag. Reason: beertypo)

[proteus_lives]

9. A tragedy.

Which would be made more tragic by using it as a excuse to strip others of their rights.

[petersjo02]

10. Oh, yes, wouldn't it though? :sarcasm:

n/t

[PavePusher]

32. If I'm reading your "sarcasm" correctly...

you'd be O.K. with having your First Amendment Rights restricted because Glenn Beck is (at best) a verbally careless ass and former V.P. Cheney is a liar.

AmIright?

[gratuitous]

13. Thank the good lord above

Or the one below, I get them mixed up sometimes. But thank somebody we have a society awash in violence, that endorses violence on every level as the panacea for whatever ails us, and makes firearms so plentifully available that scenarios like this play out on such a frequent basis. Then we can all get diverted into an argument about Guns: Good or Bad? while tap-dancing around the issue of violence. But everyone can agree that the ultimate violence perpetrated on the shooter (whether by his own hand or someone else's) is the greatest good to come out of this situation.

And watch how the responses to this post morph it into something completely unrecognizable from its content.

[TheWraith]

14. Actually, violent crime in the US has dropped by a third in the last 15-20 years.

But you won't hear that from the news media--nobody reads a story about everything being fine. And they won't tell you that scenarios like this are actually rare, which is why they make the news, nor the fact that somewhere around 75% of our murder problem is due to gangs and gang warfare over the drug trade, not an illusory social endorsement of violence.

[Kolesar]

19. well said...eom

[one-eyed fat man]

21. There are two failures involved.

First, the "War on Drugs" is as misguided and is ineffective as the Volstead Act ever was. At least, they finally had sense enough to repeal it!



Second, all those self-deluding recreational drug users who claim a little weed never killed anyone, are absolutely living proof that dope does affect critical thinking. 28,000 dead in Mexico were bought and paid for so they could enjoy their 'harmless toke.'

[Callisto32]

29. I call B.S. on the second.

Failed government policies of prohibition carry the blood for that. If it were legal, it would be practically free, because everybody that wanted it would just grow it.

[one-eyed fat man]

30. We disagree then.

The fact is it's not legal. So that makes the distribution a criminal enterprise. Like it or not, the money you spend buying weed, pays for the grenades from North Korea so that one bunch of thugs can increase their market share.

You can blame the government for making it illegal, but it's the druggies willing to put up CASH that subsidizes the trade. If there wasn't any money in it, they wouldn't be fighting over the trade.

So unless you are growing your own thug free dope, your money is paying off the all the overhead, like bribing corrupt officials, transportation costs for smuggling it across the border, buying the weaponry needed for killing the competition, everything that is the "cost" of doing business, all that is on the user's dime.

[beevul]

31. Thats an interesting take...

"So unless you are growing your own thug free dope, your money is paying off the all the overhead, like bribing corrupt officials, transportation costs for smuggling it across the border, buying the weaponry needed for killing the competition, everything that is the "cost" of doing business, all that is on the user's dime."

However its not quite accurate.

Its NOT on the usrs dime.

Its on the dime of the idiots that made the decisions leading to the passage of laws that make growing ones own "thug free dope" more risky than simply going out and buying some.



Think about that for a minute.

[Callisto32]

36. Oops.

I just made a post, and then saw that you already said it better, here. Thanks.

[one-eyed fat man]

38. I agree that prohibition is a failure

It was a failure with the Volstead Act and it just as much a failure now. But the money that drives the enterprise doesn't come from the folks who made the trade illegal. That corrupt governments and corrupt government officials might be enjoying the revenue enhancing benefits of engaging in criminal business the money ultimately comes from the consumer.

Put it another way, the government restricted your choices on your weed retailer. Your 'demand' for the 'product' resulted in a distribution chain the 'supply' that 'demand' with weed at a tidy profit for every one along the way. So one can just as easily argue that the dopers' choice is either work to change the law and wait for legal dope. Or work to change the law while funding criminal activities by buying dope anyway and pretending it's someone else's money that pays Mexicans for killing Mexicans.

"When I sell liquor, it's bootlegging. When my customers serve it on Lakeshore Drive, it's hospitality." - Al Capone



"Bugs" Moran was supposed to be at this Chicago business meeting in 1929. Your argument that government policy made supplying the demand for illicit goods incredibly lucrative is valid, but my contention that the consumer's willingness to spend what ever money it takes to fulfill his demand is what makes it all possible is as undeniably true. You may not have pulled the trigger but you paid for the bullets.

[Callisto32]

35. You are making a descriptive statement.

I am making a normative one.

"We ought to knock off this 'drugs are illegal' thing," says I. If it were readily available, and legal, people wouldn't have to go to such extreme measures to get it. Ever see people kill each other over Tylenol, bismuth fluid, or aspirin? Didn't think so.

Chan of causation matters to me.

Am I saying that those that patronize thugs aren't doing something wrong. They are. However, the 6 guys down the line from the thug I think are pretty far removed from personal liability. You can make the argument that if the people 6 guys down weren't there, the thugs wouldn't have a business. But I think of it more as "if the government would let decent folks grow it (they can't afford too, usually because of the whole "job, home, family, people that love me I can't risk by going to jail," thing) the thugs wouldn't exist at all.

[one-eyed fat man]

37. Change the commodity

Which came first, "The chicken or the egg?"

Or in this case, the doper or the dealer?

That the doper would have a stake in denying his purchases funds and underwrites the cartel's drug wars is not surprising. When you step back and clearly look at it, the three are co-dependent.

You want dope. Dope is against the law. You buy dope from criminals. Cops chase criminals. You fund the cops with your taxes and the criminals with your habit.

I never said you pulled the trigger, you just paid for the bullet.

[Callisto32]

39. I therefore reject your theory on the grounds that the cause is not proximate enough.

I understand what you are trying to say, I just don't agree.

We don't seem to be getting anywhere, so....truce?

Edit: Misspellings fixed.

[SteveM]

16. If he had used a knife, would you have posted this? nt

[shadowrider]

18. Obviously not. Death by knife isn't as lethal as death by gun n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

20. I recall such an incident being posted here. Can't seem to find it though.

[Hoopla Phil]

22. Like this one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x330300

[Glassunion]

23. *SNORT* forgot about that one. nt