Shooting rampage shocks Phoenix as man guns down four family members — including young children

A Man shot to death four family members at a house in Phoenix early on Tuesday and died in a confrontation with police officers who entered the home, police said.
Police responded to a 911 call from a person inside the residence and arrived to hear gunshots and find part of the house on fire, said Phoenix police Sergeant Trent Crump.

Officers were forced to don fire clothes and breathing apparatus as they entered the still-burning home. Crump said that one officer was treated for smoke inhalation.

Images from the scene showed firefighters on the roof of the residence as thick gray smoke billowed out and then as a fireball erupted through an opening in the structure. Three firefighters were forced to flee from the flames.

The suspect, the adult son of at least one of those killed, was pronounced dead at the scene, Crump said.

“We have no idea what the motive is, or what sparked this,” he said.

Four of the suspect’s family members were fatally shot, with two of them, including a girl, dying at the hospital, Crump said.

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton lauded the heroic efforts of police and firefighters in responding to an “unspeakable domestic violence tragedy” as it unfolded on the city’s northwest side.

“This situation was extremely dangerous and required quick thinking, flawless coordination and unimaginable personal courage,” Stanton said in a statement posted on social media.

“Our prayers go out to the victims. And our city’s unending gratitude is extended today for our heroic first responders.”

The names of the suspect and the victims were not immediately released.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/shooting-rampage-shocks-phoenix-as-man-guns-down-four-family-members-including-young-children/

Terrible. Another story of an idiot with a gun.

Arizona has the highest per capita gun ownership of any state in the Union.

Original Quill wrote:Arizona has the highest per capita gun ownership of any state in the Union.

Any reason for that Quill, do you know?

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Arizona has the highest per capita gun ownership of any state in the Union.

Any reason for that Quill, do you know?

It's a western state, dominated by those only recently come out of Cowboys and Indians. Arizona was a territory until 1912...the last state in the lower 48.

It's dominated by ranchers and copper mining. They've still got one foot in the past.

Ranchers are historically known for using guns, what I mean to say is, they have more of a reason to own them, than other U.S. Citizens, is that right?
Hope that makes sense lol, I'm about to go to bed and tired

eddie wrote:Ranchers are historically known for using guns, what I mean to say is, they have more of a reason to own them, than other U.S. Citizens, is that right?
Hope that makes sense lol, I'm about to go to bed and tired

Absolutely makes sense. There's a lot of open country in Arizona. I used to carry a .45 when hiking in the Superstition Mts. Also carried a first aid kit. Two parts of the same effort...keep safe.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Ranchers are historically known for using guns, what I mean to say is, they have more of a reason to own them, than other U.S. Citizens, is that right?
Hope that makes sense lol, I'm about to go to bed and tired

Absolutely makes sense.  There's a lot of open country in Arizona.  I used to carry a .45 when hiking in the Superstition Mts.  Also carried a first aid kit.  Two parts of the same effort...keep safe.

I take it "open country" can mean "you're on your own... better kill or be killed!"

And a long way from help...hospitals, EMT's and law enforcement. So you pack in your own equipment.

Original Quill wrote:And a long way from help...hospitals, EMT's and law enforcement.  So you pack in your own equipment.

That's why we ought to afford more local control over gun ordinances. Banning handguns makes a lot more sense in Chicago or New York than it does in rural Arizona.

@Ben and Quill

"Americans"

 

if you had differing gun ordinances in different states, wouldnt that mean "land of the free" would mean in fact "land of the free...depending where you live"

surely something like this is "federal law" as it concerns all equally? and therfore should there not be one single ordinance to cover the whole country, regardless?

Lord Foul wrote:if you had differing gun ordinances in different states, wouldnt that mean "land of the free" would mean in fact "land of the free...depending where you live"

surely something like this is "federal law" as it concerns all equally? and therfore should there not be one single ordinance to cover the whole country, regardless?

Not really. A federation of states is designed via constitution to allow for variation between states.
And the constitution means more than the patriotic words of the national anthem.

uhm...now you see why we dont like the EU

cause you dont understand a 'federation of states'...

I actually almost commented that, that is porbably why you are all so negative towards the EU. You think it makes a Big Britian or France, not the real propostion that Britian and France etc are just States in a larger union that will not be like the tiny things you currently call nations.

but you just argued that "A federation of states is designed via constitution to allow for variation between states"

the EU does NOT if it can help it....and not without a lot of argy bargy....

it repeatedly imposes blanket rules across all nations....

and that argy bargy is called politics.

Your internal national politics need to be streamlined like our state parliments so more effort can be put into getting your position forward in the 'new national' union.

And As I always point out...
it is being run by old world europeans.... what do you expect?

and it did take decades for the existing federation of states to be cohesive like they are now. 
And even then you can see we are not 100% in agreement with each other on many things.

given time the EU could succeed but not if it is undermined in it's infancy (I think it has been by Russia and the USA)

Lord Foul wrote:if you had differing gun ordinances in different states, wouldnt that mean "land of the free" would mean in fact "land of the free...depending where you live"

surely something like this is "federal law" as it concerns all equally? and therfore should there not be one single ordinance to cover the whole country, regardless?

Not really, at the constitutional level, the basic right to possession of firearms would be enumerated, while at more local levels, common-sense public safety ordinance would apply, but nothing actually banning the possession of firearms.

This is the de facto situation right now, as I've said before. It's much easier to obtain a gun in some states (like mine) than it is in others.

veya_victaous wrote:@Ben and Quill

"Americans"

 

Hey, I live with the fact that we have gun rights written into our constitution, and that more significantly, the supreme court has ruled on what this means. I don't like it, but it's reality if you're an American.

Lord Foul wrote:if you had differing gun ordinances in different states, wouldnt that mean "land of the free" would mean in fact "land of the free...depending where you live"

surely something like this is "federal law" as it concerns all equally? and therfore should there not be one single ordinance to cover the whole country, regardless?

That's true of the whole states rights issue across-the-board.

The idea of 5- individual state making laws strictly for their own jurisdiction is seen by some as a form of liberty--freedom from the other sheep.  Far be it for me to advocate one way or the other, but that's what they are saying.

And you are absolutely right on the EU question.  There again is another uniformity vs. liberty issue.  I suggest the answer to this question is to catalog everything according to whether it's more advantageous to have liberty and variation, or to have uniformity and equality.  In other words, what do you want?