On Wednesday evening, a rifle-toting gunman murdered 18 people and wounded at least 13 more in Lewiston, Maine, when he opened fire at two separate locations—a bowling alley, followed by a bar. A manhunt is still underway for 40-year-old suspect Robert Card, a trained firearms instructor with the U.S. Army Reserve who, just this summer, spent two weeks in a mental hospital after reporting that he was hearing voices and threatening to shoot up a military base.

While the other late-night talk show hosts stuck to poking fun at new Speaker of the House Mike Johnson on Thursday night, Stephen Colbert took his rebuke of the Louisiana congressman to a whole other level.

“Now, we know the arguments,” Colbert said of the do-nothing response politicians generally have to tragedies such as this. “Some people are going to say this is a mental health issue. Others are going to say it’s a gun issue. But there’s no reason it can’t be both.”

  • ratman150@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    50
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Why is this so down voted? I’m seriously asking?

    Are the people down voting disagreeing that mentally stable people generally don’t go around shooting up public spaces?

    Edit: Jesus was just asking, down voting doesn’t help anyone who was confused as I was.

    To everyone explaining the issue here thank you I get it now.

    • Bumblefumble@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      64
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Because he’s arguing in bad faith. He’s removing blame from the ease of access to guns in a disingenuous, JAQing off way.

      • MightBeAlpharius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        It really bugs me when people do stuff like that… I grew up in VT, where laws are lax, tons of people have guns, and nothing ever happens. Responsibly handled and in the hands of a stable person, guns can be pretty safe - but, if you remove either one of those things, they’re incredibly dangerous.

        In light of that, I wouldn’t mind if access were restricted somewhat. I’m totally fine with my neighbor having a rifle to kill varmints on their property, but way less fine with folks like my paranoid uncle having a safe full of assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammo in a densely populated suburb.

        • Xhieron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          In the civilized world, you have to justify your need for a gun with the presence of the aforementioned varmints. No yard, no varmints, no gun.

          No one needs a machine gun to hunt deer, and no one needs a handgun. Handguns are lousy for self defense (“buy a shotgun”, to quote the President). All they’re good for is killing humans and making gun shareholders richer.

          And no gun is going to help you if the government comes for you either. The cops are coming with tear gas, body armor, and tanks, and most importantly there’s no amount of cops you can kill that will get them to leave you alone.

          All of the justifiable bases for having a gun are solved with a double barrel shotgun. Even if you’re being mauled by a bear, if two rounds of buckshot don’t stop it, you weren’t gonna make it anyway.

          License shotguns like cars and get rid of everything else. “Only criminals will have guns!” That’s what your shotgun is for. And if the criminals are getting locked up for having mobile armories, even better. We can replace the current prison population of black drug users with actual gangsters.

          • krolden@lemmy.ml
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            In the civilized world, you have to justify your need for a gun with the presence of the aforementioned varmints. No yard, no varmints, no gun.

            so gun ownership should only be allowed for people who own property?

            • Xhieron@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Yes, and while we’re at it, yes to any other bad faith strawman argument you’ve got. GTFO with that bullshit.

          • Fal@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            8 months ago

            In the civilized world, you have to justify your need for a gun with the presence of the aforementioned varmints.

            Fuck that. We can talk about giving up our guns when the cops and government give up theirs

            • rchive@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              We can talk about giving up our guns when the cops and government give up theirs

              Amen to that.

        • adrian783@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Maine and Vermont has similar gun ownership rates and death by gun statistics.

          “nothing ever happens” until it happens. then it’s all “how could this have happened” 🤷‍♀️

          you only need an air rifle for killing varmints, AR-15 is designed for killing people.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      8 months ago

      That statement came across as the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument that is used against gun control, saying that it makes no sense to restrict guns when it’s the person using the gun who decides to kill, and if that person is motivated enough they can do damage even without access to firearms, so why bother?

      I don’t think that’s your point at all, but people always reflexively downvote over shit like that.

    • Ordoabchao@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Gun ownership is a touchy issue to the US population in general. shrugs

      Ease of access to firearms is a massive part of the problem, but saying that I will be downvoted even more. Add in the fact there are people having mental issues and breakdowns more than ever, and you can see why mass shootings are increasing.

      Simply put, it’s not an issue that is going to be solved any time soon, if ever. It is a highly politicized issue, which you can tell by the ferocity of the responses I got to my flippant original comment.

    • Codilingus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      For real, I feel like their comment was literally only about the mental stability of these shooters. That’s it. But people read into what isn’t there and assume it’s a bad faith argument against gun control.