469
submitted 2 years 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 76 points 2 years ago

How many rounds of ammo he had is not really relevant (unless he used all 26000 rounds of ammo or was in the process of using them).

That he killed the wife in front of the kid… that is relevant.

[-] ivanafterall@kbin.social 60 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

"First things first, I just want to say the fact that the murderer had 47 guns and 26,000 rounds of ammunition sheds no light on his personality or the crime."

Okay.

[-] borkcorkedforks@kbin.social 21 points 2 years 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 44 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 14 points 2 years ago

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

[-] QHC@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years 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 12 points 2 years 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.

[-] Woozy@dmv.social 7 points 2 years ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Jerkface@lemmy.ml 25 points 2 years ago

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

Never woulda seen that coming! Must be the booze!

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years 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!

[-] borkcorkedforks@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago

I suppose the guns hypnotized him and made him do it? He did it because he was a piece of shit.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years 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.

[-] girlfreddy@mastodon.social 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

@borkcorkedforks @MicroWave @andrewta @ivanafterall

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

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Yeah. I think the previous domestic disputes and alcohol abuse are more relevant to the domestic violence. If he didn't have a gun, it would have been a fist.

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

Which she likely would've survived?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Arsenal4ever@lemmy.world 50 points 2 years ago

Take a moment to admire the marketing of the gun manufacturers for a minute. Like, imagine someone having 47 toasters.

Gun Manufacturers and the NRA (same thing) are good at what they do.

[-] Exusia@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

That's not really a fair comparison though. They all handle and fire different. This piece of shit is still a piece of shit, but collecting different guns is more akin to "I participate in 10,000 point fights with my choice of Orks or Blueberry Spacemarines" than toasters.

Noone needs that but that's a hobby.

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago

A hobby he killed his wife with because it's a hobby that appeals to shitheads.

[-] _stranger_@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

At least we agree that it's mostly the shitheads that are the problem, not so much the hobby. I'm pretty sure this shithead would have killed his wife if his hobby was hiking or cosplay too.

Ever hear the story of the nuclear boy scout? Now thats a hobby no one should be allowed to have.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] nutbiggums@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 years ago

Easy to scare limp dick conservatives

[-] Coreidan@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You think this guy has 47 guns because he’s scared? Really???

Edit: sure keep down voting me. No one buys 47 guns because they are “scared”. Clearly this guy loves guns and collects them for fun. He’s still a POS but describing what drives his behavior as “scared” just makes you look completely out of touch with reality, which doesn’t help improve the overall situation.

[-] Apollo@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago

People who buy 1 gun are scared, people who buy 47 guns are scared people with an expensive hobby.

[-] deadtom@lemmy.world 45 points 2 years ago

Wife stopped him from committing suicide and he eventually killed her. This dude deserves to be strapped to a cannon so his chest can be blown out. I can't imagine how their son feels finding out his dad is irredeemable trash who would execute his mother, and basically losing both parents in a night.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Fallenwout@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I don't mean he is not a piece of shit but

Who cares he has 47 weapons. You only have 2 hands. What you think he is going to do? Strap 30 glocks to his leg?

Who cares he has 26000 rounds. Do you know how heavy ammo is? What you think is he going to do? Walk around with a shopping cart full of ammo? Strap 50 magazines to his chest?

It still amazes me that people fall for this "quantity " argument. It means nothing. Someone is not more dangerous with 500 rifles or 5 rifles.

[-] Hypersapien@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

I think the point was that he was obsessed with guns.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

Well isn't that exactly the point? What possible reason does a murderer need with 47 guns and 26,000 rounds of ammunition? He only has two hands and couldn't conceivably carry a tenth of that at any given time.

There's a few reasons people collect guns. Some people just like guns, and appreciate the craftsmanship and variety of weapons. Like any hobby, it's easy to end up with way more stuff than might seem reasonable to an outside observer.

But this guy was a judge. If he was an avid stamp collector, and had a basement full of stamps, nobody would care that he had an obsessive hobby until he decided to dissolve his wife in a vat of stamp preservative or whatever. 47 might seem like a reasonable number of guns to a lot of folks, but we can all agree that's still more than anyone needs for things like hunting or self defense.

Another reason to collect guns is because you're prepping for... something. Collapse of some sort, or maybe the government is going to start piling up bodies so they can take guns from cold, dead hands. Whatever happens, you're going to need weapons in all calibers, and ammo will become the new currency.

But again, this guy was a State Supreme Court Justice, and not for some podunk state like that one state we're all thinking of. No, he was among the top jurists in Califuckingfornia, a high arbiter of justice and the rule of law in the most populous and prosperous state. If this piece of shit was also a prepper, what in the sam hill is he prepping for?

There are probably other reasons to have a big collection of guns. But given that he murdered his wife, I think we can agree that his specific, violent version of crazy is relevant to the conversation.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] puppy@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

And to think that he was responsible for deciding the fate of others. SMH.

[-] CoolSouthpaw@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

What a fucking piece of shit. Hope he gets fucked up in prison.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

You know, I'll bet if anyone who wasn't a federal judge did this they'd be denied bail.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] steebo_jack@kbin.social 18 points 2 years ago

So much for CA not letting you own guns eh...

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

This is why it should be illegal for conservatives to own guns or hold positions of power. Any group of people so notoriously anti-education but pro-slavery should be treated a bit differently in polite society.

[-] qaz@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

So, you want to discriminate people on a state level based on their political views?

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

Every act of racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia and antisemitism comes from conservatives. Almost every domestic terrorist attack in U.S. history has been by conservatives. This is much, much more than a difference of opinion on political views. Conservatives are dangerous. Armed conservatives are deadly.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] quaddo@reddthat.com 13 points 2 years ago

Random thought that's totally pointless here:

If he took all of his weapons and all of his ammo to a shooting range, and if he prepped to the best of his ability before beginning, how long would it take for him to shoot off all 26,000 rounds, if he tried as hard as he could to fire them off as quickly as possible? By himself, with nobody else helping, just to be clear.

Feel free to throw out best case scenarios.

Shooting is the easy part, you can probably sustain about a round per second. Reloading magazines probably takes 5 times as long, so let's say 10 rounds per minute, 600 per hour. If he's there for 8 hours that's 4,800 per day so he could git 'er done in about a week.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Hypersapien@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

Let me guess. Conservative?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
469 points (100.0% liked)

News

31214 readers
3445 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. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS