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.”

  • rchive@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    49
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have an idea, let’s just ban murder. That should work. Lol

      • rchive@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        That was exactly my point, thanks.

        Banning things doesn’t make them magically go away.

        • Lianodel@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          What is your point, exactly? Because maybe there’s a misunderstanding here, because you seemed to make a pro-gun argument by forgetting that murder is, famously, a crime.

          If that’s the case, it would raise the question: do you think we should regulate gun ownership to lower the rate of gun violence, the same way that the penalties for murder are meant to lower the rate of homicide? Or do you think we shouldn’t criminalize homicide, the same way people don’t want to regulate gun ownership, because if it isn’t 100% effective then it’s not worth doing?

          • rchive@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            I wasn’t making an argument, I was making a joke. I was imagining a fictional character believing that illegal things magically can’t happen, and murder does happen so it must be legal, so the obvious solution would be to make it illegal so it would stop happening.

            • Lianodel@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ah, okay.

              I was inclined to think you were serious because, believe it or not, it’s an argument I’ve heard before. Apart from random people trying to futz through an argument, Ben Shapiro complained that Democrats, when asked what they’d ban, didn’t say “crime.”

              • rchive@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                I should add in seriousness, I do think it’s important to recognize that laws don’t magically make things go away. Sometimes things are very hard to eliminate, and sometimes prohibition of something actually makes it worse like with the Drug War. But like you said about murder, we don’t say, “murder bans didn’t actually eliminate murder, therefore we might as well get rid of them.”