459
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

A California Superior Court judge arrested last week has now been charged with killing his wife in front of their adult son at their home. Court filings reveal the judge had over 47 weapons and 26,000 rounds of ammunition in his home.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] borkcorkedforks@kbin.social -5 points 1 year ago

If he regularly shot pictures of women or something sure but owning a lot of guns or buying ammo in bulk isn't really any indication of domestic violence. The son even said there wasn't a history of violence. It seems like the heavy drinking or arguments have more correlation than anything.

Media outlets often cite things like how many guns someone has to freak out people who don't know about guns. All the dude needed to fuck up was a single handgun and a single bullet. If he was drunk he shouldn't have even been carrying. And being drunk isn't really a good argument for why someone got violent.

[-] QHC@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

owning a lot of guns or buying ammo in bulk isn’t really any indication of domestic violence

Good thing there isn't a known correlation between gun ownership and higher rates of domestic homicide, right? That would totally destroy your argument. How embarrassing that would be.

[-] borkcorkedforks@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

A lot of domestic violence involving a gun doesn't mean that most gun owners are abusive.

[-] Woozy@dmv.social 6 points 1 year ago

No one said "most gun owners". You're trying to shift the argument to something you have a chance with.

[-] borkcorkedforks@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

My original statement was that owning a lot of guns wasn't suggestive of anything. The comment suggested there was a "correlation" with owning guns and domestic violence in response.

[-] QHC@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

It actually does, which you would know if you even glanced at the sources I provided.

A woman is five times more likely to be murdered when her abuser has access to a gun.

[-] borkcorkedforks@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

That is a different statement. It's saying abusers can be more dangerous with a weapon. It does not follow that people who own a weapon are somehow more likely to be an abuser.

To make that argument it would need to say something about what percentage of gun owners commit abuse or some kind violent crime.

You can find higher rates of domestic violence among cops for instance so maybe you could argue cops are more likely to be abusers.

[-] onionbaggage@lemmynsfw.com -2 points 1 year ago
[-] Mtrad@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

Correlation isn't causation. Example, we all have drunk water. Everyone dies at some point. I found correlation that drinking water causes death 100% of the time.

The number of guns isn't the issue, it's what he's choosing to do with them. There are legitimate reasons to own them that are not malicious. Gun collection for example. There are some wacky designs out there. Look up the forgotten weapons YouTube channel for examples.

[-] Jerkface@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

owns 47 guns, 26,000 rounds -> shoots wife

Never woulda seen that coming! Must be the booze!

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Literally was holding the murder weapon on his fucking leg while having the argument.

All of the 2A assholes in this thread: Nothing to see here!

[-] Woozy@dmv.social 6 points 1 year ago

When you've collected 47 hammers. All your problems begin to look like nails.

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Yeah because having so many guns you literally have a gun on your ankle while also being a belligerent drunk doesn't prime you more for murder the next time you "lose it".

Guns make murder literally child's play. If he wasn't such an ammo sexual he may have slapped his wife and gotten beaten up by his son and landed in the drunk tank, but because a gun was easier and more available his first round of reported domestic violence was lethal.

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago
[-] girlfreddy@mastodon.social -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

@borkcorkedforks @MicroWave @andrewta @ivanafterall

So you're explaining why most other nations who have gun laws have fewer gun deaths, right?

[-] borkcorkedforks@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Violence was a thing before guns existed. If I got stabbed I'm not going to think, "Thank goodness I wasn't shot." I suppose I'll have plenty of to think about it while waiting for the cops to show up though.

Cherry picking and a lack of controling for confounding variables is an issue when people try to make the claim you did. There is also a lot more going on than just gun laws. When normal people don't benefit from our GDP it really isn't a good benchmark for comparable countries. When people have a lack opportunities or lack social programs there will probably be some social problems.

[-] new_acct_who_dis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

If I had time enough to ponder my injuries after being stabbed, the thought "at least I wasn't shot" would absolutely cross my mind. But maybe that's just an American thing

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago

Generic pro-gun trash.

Nobody is claiming the guns invented violence, they're pointing out how guns turn emotions into murders faster, and with more lethality, that any other form of violence.

Then of course there's the usual "I will only consider the idea of not selling guns to deeply and blatantly damaged people after you cure every single person in America of every currently incurable mental health issue and build a perfect utopia of equality and free hugs".

But I've got an even better idea: we could just ignore what the gun lobby and pro-gun crowd wants and address things now, without their rubber stamp of approval.

this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
459 points (95.3% liked)

News

23305 readers
3693 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS