News
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.
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.
view the rest of the comments
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
A lot of domestic violence involving a gun doesn't mean that most gun owners are abusive.
No one said "most gun owners". You're trying to shift the argument to something you have a chance with.
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.
It actually does, which you would know if you even glanced at the sources I provided.
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.
owns 47 guns, 26,000 rounds -> shoots wife
Never woulda seen that coming! Must be the booze!
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!
When you've collected 47 hammers. All your problems begin to look like nails.
I suppose the guns hypnotized him and made him do it? He did it because he was a piece of shit.
At least he had access to a weapon that could kill someone in an instance.
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.
@borkcorkedforks @MicroWave @andrewta @ivanafterall
So you're explaining why most other nations who have gun laws have fewer gun deaths, right?
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.
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
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.
"copy and pastes previous comment"
Okay.
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"
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.
I'm more concerned he was able to become a judge.
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.
There are multiple articles on this situation. This particular article was written because of the somewhat unique weapons cache. Other articles will be written about mental health, without a doubt
If you switch Pokemon cards to gallons of fuel it'd be more like the headline here.
But I know you're purposely missing the point anyway.
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.
What about for times when the ammo prices skyrocket?
This literally happened not too long ago.
Perfect example of a blatantly intellectualy dishonest argument right here. Show me how Pokemon cards were designed to burn down a house.
I think the point is that correlation is not causation. A ridiculous example was used to illustrate that point.
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.
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.
Which she likely would've survived?
Fist*
*or knife, hammer, baseball bat, crowbar, rebar, pipe, wrench...
Yes. Too bad he had all those guns within easy reach.
Exactly
IIRC California requires background checks every 6 months to order ammo, and it can only be shipped to licensed ammo dealers, which charge a fee, and then picked up in person. It makes sense for California gun owners to buy bullets in bulk quantities.
But 47 weapons at home is excessive IMO.
Yup, to add on, with all those restrictions somehow it's still a crime ridden mess over there.
No we must make it looks like the guns made him do it.