California judge charged with killing wife had 47 guns, 26,000 rounds of ammunition: Court documents
California judge charged with killing wife had 47 guns, 26,000 rounds of ammunition: Court documents
Orange County Judge Jeffrey Ferguson has been charged with the murder of his wife. He posted $1 million in bail.
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're viewing a single thread.
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.
Permanently Deleted
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.
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.
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.
A woman is five times more likely to be murdered when her abuser has access to a gun.
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.
Or does it?
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.
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.
Wrong.
@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.
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
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.
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 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.
Was there pineapple on the pizza?
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.
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.
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
I recall some recent study that said most mass shooters follow a predictable pattern of buying guns, then amassing guns and ammo.
Nobody needs 26,000 rounds. There is no problem that any American can legitimately solve with 26,000 rounds. It's a threat to everyone.
If you are a hobbyist shooter then it is common to buy ammo in bulk. And if you've never done competitive shooting or even just going to the range once a month, you may not realize how fast the ammo is used up.
How much ammo does it usually take to kill your wife?
I wouldn't know.
No problem that exists today. Stocking up on ammo is for the unpredictable future. You only need one bullet for a regular murder right?
Right? I mean, why would someone who shot their spouse do anything irrational?
Bud get it in your brain: you will not solve the sort of problem that might require 26,000 rounds, as you are not a regimented militia or national guard. If we get invaded by ground troops from Canada or something, and we actually needed to call up militias, the government already has the guns and ammo stockpiled and will drop them off at your door, probably after seizing Amazon under the Defense Production Act.
Again, the problem you think you're solving with 26,000 rounds isn't legitimate. You've imagined it. You're not Rick Grimes, you're "unamed screaming guy 7."
Well, I wasn’t talking about myself. I do have a moderate quantity of ammo but its a “better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it” philosophy for me.
Also I have some surplus stuff that was super cheap at the time and unobtainable today.
I certainly don’t like the idea of waiting for someone to drop off tools to defend myself as you suggested.
I need 26,000 rounds for all legal purposes. You have no right to get in the middle of that
I don't have that right. The Constitution gives it to the federal government, it's called general welfare, it's called police powers. Article I stuff.
The 10th Amendment grants all police powers to the states unless enumerated otherwise in the Constitution (such as is the case with interstate commerce). And states may not enact laws that supercede federal laws per the Supremacy Clause. This is important when applied to arms as they are protected by the 2A in the Constitution, which is the highest law in the land.
As for general welfare, that's targeted at federal spending. A common place where it applies is that it empowers the federal government to grant crop subsidies to farmers.
That's why when someone commits a crime like murder it's under state jurisdiction. Unless that particular case occurred on federal land or involved cross state travel, then that would become a federal case.
Ammunition prices fluctuate drastically with global and national events. In 2021 when COVID hit 9mm cost roughly 70 cents a round. Today it's around 19 cents a round. There's a buy cheap stack deep philosophy practiced when buying ammo.
A competition shooter or someone attending a class can easily shoot 1,000 rounds over a weekend. Buying in large volume when prices are low means that weekend costs $190 not $700.
Get a new hobby? One that doesn't threaten everyone around you, maybe? Maybe one that's just overall cheaper.
I have zero problem with hunting, target shooting, collecting. One poster here says they have 4,000 rounds; shoots trap every weekend, buys them on sale. Fine.
This dude had 26,000. That is a compulsion. He thought amassing ammo would solve something for him. Would provide him something he lacked. Probably something subconscious. Some deep-seated fear.
As to the rest of us, it solves nothing legitimate, certainly nothing the Second Amendment was directed toward.
What harm can practically be done by one man with 26,000 that couldn't be done with 4,000 or half that? If we stick with the 9mm metrics 4,000 rounds would weigh just past 100lb (45 kilos) @ 115g rds. 26,000 rounds of it would be 3-4x the weight of the average man at about 650lbs (294 kilos).
That volume only benefits consistent use over weeks/months/years, something fortunately not found in the cases where people abuse firearms to harm others.
26,000 is a lot, but with no other context it's not an indicator of "crazy".
As others have said: ammo is cheaper in bulk. It doesn't "go bad" if stored properly, and you need different rounds for different guns. And for a while it was hard to find -- you stocked up when you found it because you didn't know when it was going to be available again.
1000 shells of 12 ga -- that's two cases, I have to drive a long way to find them, and I shoot trap every other week. 20ish shells, 12 ga slugs -- left over from hunting I have 1050 rounds of 9mm, because I bought 3 cheap boxes of Blazer Brass on sale and that's what I shoot at the range. 800ish of 7.62x54r -- 2 spam cans, for the same reason. Probably 1500ish rounds of .22lr -- 3 boxes of 500 rounds... same reason.
I'm not a nut, but if the cops raided my house the headline would be "found with over 4000 rounds of ammunition!!!!"
The other indicator is that he murdered his wife.
Completely irrelevant
What if you have to wage a war against emu’s?
You'll be swarmed. Only the Samurai survive that war.
Permanently Deleted
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.
Well the guns enabled him to (allegedly) shoot his wife but it doesn't seem like he was planning to make 26 000 holes in her.
But who's to say he wasn't about to kill 25,999 more people? Think of your children!
/s
guesstimates the number of people between CA and my house
Whew! I think I'm safe