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.”

  • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.