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.
It’s kinda weird that they made this more about how much weaponry he has rather than about his mental health and the actual situation.
Weird take though - I kinda want more news with random stats.
“Woman with over 64000 Pokemon cards burns down house”
“Man who eats 16 slices of pizza that one time evades police”
Perfect example of a blatantly intellectualy dishonest argument right here. Show me how Pokemon cards were designed to burn down a house.
It’s almost like they want to continue to demonize normal gun owners (yes there are dozens of us left leaning gun owners). I’m kind of fucking sick of it but the rich folks that want us disarmed have enough to keep funding the meessages.
You’re not normal if you have 26000 rounds of ammo. I have 5 guns and don’t have 500 rounds. 26000 rounds sounds like someone with a dooms-day mindset preparing for anarchy.
I think it’s relevant to note that someone mentally unwell enough to kill another person (especially their own spouse) was able to hoard such a large amount of weapons.
I guess the rest of us are just lucky that he only wanted to kill one person, instead of several.
Devil’s advocate here. Where is the line? In an extreme example, ADHD is a mental condition so maybe they shouldn’t have guns?
In a more nuanced example, what about the trans community? Some say it’s mental disorder, some don’t. So should they or should they not have any firearms. Highest cause of gun death is actually suicide and trans community has high rate of suicide.
The point I’m making is, I think we can agree some extreme examples are very easy to distinguish. But it is a very slippery slope where people’s rights could be taken away without proper due process. Basically, at the mercy of the current administration’s opinions rather than the actual facts of the situation.
Your examples are extremely dismissive of a link that is actually there. He owned a fuckload of guns and used them to murder his wife. Not only are your crimes less serious, they’re not related to the hobby at all.
Regardless, the people claiming “what’s the big deal, so he owned a bunch of guns” clearly have no idea how it looks outside of pro-gun circles (and outside of America).
If he had been charged with sexual assault and the headline said that he owned a sex doll, you might say “so what?”. If he was charged with sexual assault and he owned 48 sex dolls, you’d be treating it like a red flag.
It’s not a random stat like Pokemon cards. You’re being obtuse. It would be more like “Woman with extensive collection of flares, matches, and gasoline burns down house” and “man who owned numerous police scanners and maps of escape routes evades police.”
The “actual situation” is that he had a collection of 47 weapons that enable murder and he murdered someone with one of them. Your analogies are absurd.
