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.”

  • Ordoabchao@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    140
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m no gun expert or psychologist, but I am fairly certain mentally stable people don’t go round shooting up public places.

    • tomatobeard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      82
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am fairly certain the same could be said for someone experiencing a mental health crisis without access to firearms.

      • telllos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly, you’re mentally stable until you’re not. And lot’s of things can trigger a crisis.

        He was such a nice guy, who would have thought!

      • Jeremy [Iowa]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a good thing no one has ever used improvised explosives conveniently stuffed in a pressure cooker, cars, etc for this.

    • chaogomu@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most mass shooters are actually right wing nutjobs.

      Take this one, he was part of a right-wing militia.

      While he did have a metal issue, he also had access to far too many guns, and then continued access after threatening to go on a mass shooting. All because he was part of a “militia”.

      • Ordoabchao@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Definitely one way of trying to . One question though, who’s going to pay for all that?

        The mental health services are not going to be free and the gun owners certainly won’t be cool with paying it. The government definitely won’t pay for it…See, this is why I say I have no faith that the problem won’t be solved any time soon, if ever.

        Too many hard and expensive choices to make that will prove massively unpopular with large parts of either side of the argument.

        • bbuez@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The gun lobby could pay for it! They’ve got 16 million a year to spare!

          Too expensive! Says residents of the only developed nation where this is a regular occurance

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The Maine shooter received urgent mental healthcare. Then he killed 20 people with a legally purchased firearm.

      If you genuinely believe that “universal healthcare with no waiting times, for free, to every man, woman and child in America, including people who don’t want help, that instantly cures them of complex mental health problems far beyond our current medical science and so completely they will never relapse for even a minute, all so we can indiscriminately sell them guns” is a reasonable position, by all means start building that system.

      You can have your guns back when you’re done.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Involuntary commitment disqualifies a person from owning guns legally. It’s essentially never happens though.

        • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think he voluntarily checked himself in, that’s what someone said last night. I’m talking more about before they get a gun.

        • misanthropy@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Personally, this is one of the reasons I keep my mental illness to myself. I don’t want to hurt anyone but myself (and that’s not all the time), but knowing I might lose the right forever makes me keep a lid on things, and honestly prevents me from reaching out for help when I’m feeling particularly sour.

          Also, the paperwork you sign before your NICS background check asks if you’ve been committed, voluntary or involuntary.

          Also, involuntarily commiting definitely happens, but usually it’s after a failed suicide attempt, and just nets you a 20-25k bill (with insurance) and having no way of going back to work for three days costing you your job. I’ve got two friends with that exact experience.

          • rchive@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            And that’s the other edge of the double edged sword. If you say, “people with known mental health problems lose certain rights, even temporarily,” some portion of people with those problems will just fight harder to keep them unknown, foregoing help in the process. It’s just like how when certain places pass laws prohibiting having sex when you know you have an STD, some people just stop getting checked so they don’t “know” they have an STD.

            • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              There’s basically nothing temporary to government. You generally have to fight to undo anything, even if the laws says it should.

        • krolden@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          And it bans them from owning gun virtually forever unless they can afford a good lawyer and all the legal fees youll need to do it.

      • rchive@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I hear calls for things like Red Flag Laws from conservatives pretty often, actually.

          • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There isn’t any because Republicans focus on tax cuts for billionaires first. Everything else is just posturing.

            Think about it. What federal legislation have Republicans proposed and passed since Bush? Tax cuts for billionaires. At least Bush mixed it up with some giveaways to the defense industry.

          • rchive@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t know about other places, but here in Indiana we have a statewide Red Flag law. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think of Indiana as much of a blue state.

      • Ashyr@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a super odd take. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to own guns. My grandfather was a farmer and they’re just standard tools on a farm.

          • Jeremy [Iowa]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m interested in hearing how you, personally, draw the line given such an absolute applied to a firearm which is far from the top of the list.

            That said, I’m also interested in hearing how you arrive at such a conclusion regarding mental stability and the decision to own anything related. You seem to be projecting your own biases upon others.

    • eskimofry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      If guns were not so prevalent… then this mentally unstable person wouldn’t be able to kill so many people in such a short amount of time. Even the fucking police ignored his hearing voices and mental clinic appointment.

    • ratman150@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      51
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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
        66
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year 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
          3
          ·
          1 year 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
            23
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year 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
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

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

            • Jeremy [Iowa]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

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

              Rather, in the civilized world, you have to justify infringing upon a person’s rights.

              No legitimate, well-reasoned justification means no infringement.

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

              Need was never about it, though I’m interested in your reference point for machine guns being used to hunt deer. You seem to be living in fantasy.

              I’m similarly interested in your sources indicating handguns aren’t effective for self-defense; proving a negative will be interesting but your position is mere baseless nonsense otherwise - that would align with your hyperbole.

              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.

              Again, need was never a factor, though I’m interested in your source on the efficacy of double-barrel shotguns in self defense especially concealed carry and close quarters.

              I’m similarly interested in your source regarding defense against a bear being a foregone conclusion.

              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.

              Alternatively, we could actually address the underlying issues to mass violence - mass and otherwise - and by default address the shootings. We’d coincidentally be improving lives. This is a thing much more likely to pass than the amendment necessary to implement such asinine and arbitrary restrictions.

              I can’t help but wonder if you realize how deeply unserious you seem.

            • Fal@yiffit.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              1 year 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
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

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

                Amen to that.

                • Jeremy [Iowa]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Afghanistan managed to fend off the US armed forces for quite some time with ghetto Soviet-era AKs and grit.

                  That aside… how likely do you think the “Pentagon drones” are to attack citizens at all, let alone regularly? That’s the kind of political suicide that destabilizes armed forces.

          • adrian783@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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
        1 year 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
        5
        ·
        1 year 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.