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.”

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
81 points

Hey I’m not super into politics, but maybe we should look into banning guns ¯_(ツ)_/¯

If you need one for hunting or varmint control there can be a special license for that but you gotta admit we got a little problem with guns in America.

I have guns but if the day comes where they’re banned fuck it I’ll turn em in if that helps us move past daily mass shootings.

permalink
report
reply
16 points

i dunno i think we should just pray more. that always seems to work after every mass shooting.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Prays are worthless without thoughts as well.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

What they don’t tell you is every bad thought or greedy prayer cancels out a good one.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

No, don’t you think that we should instead ban mental illness? Because I’m totally sure that will work out better.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I live in Australia, we have gun bans. We still have guns. It’s not even really hard to get them. There’s shops. It’s just more like getting a really easy drivers licence. It’s not about banning them. It’s more about screening the people who want to buy them, and regulating their use.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I’m in complete agreement though I do believe there needs to be an exemption for people like my parents. Every spring/summer they end up with something between 6 and 12 coyotes in their woods.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Lol I specifically said varmint control, if you live on land that has coyotes or whatever all the power to you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Lol whoops I missed that

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Look at all this naysaying bullshit. Honestly 99.9999% of people aren’t going to lose their life over having a gun or not. Maybe a few guns will remain hidden or in black market or whatever, but how many more school shootings will it take before we actually try something instead of just pointing out the reasons it won’t be easy and throw up our hands?

It’s disgusting and I’m tired of it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I think the issue that a ban will take years to effectively cool the possession of assault weapons is not actually an issue worth stalling over. While a lot of people tend to look at a law as “if it’s not immediately 100% effective it is garbage” in reality if you call for a refund based recall it will take a chunk out of the total guns out there. Patience is nessisarily.

Seizures of weapons in illegal transport or market will eventually account for another chunk. Guns are regularly stolen from home break ins so a lot of personal arsonal will find it’s way into black markets. Over time when the things can be reported when used in gun clubs or spotted in the wild you take away a lot of the “fun” quotent of owning the weapons making surrender much more likely. The legal ramifications of finding the weapons in self defense cases motivates from another end. If you can’t use them for self defense then the argument of what the point of having them gets stronger. A lot of people own these weapons in part for the same reasons they do expensive cars - the joy of using them and the cashe of bragging and showing them off. While 2nd amendment stans might hoarde them for ideological reasons they probably are gunna be forced to make them hard to find and make sure they don’t mention them to young children who might narc on them making kids getting their hands on them less likely.

The more effectively useless and detrimental you legally make something over time you do wear away at the trouble and anxiety required to maintain ownership. What the US should aim for is long game de-escalation. If people don’t start the process it just means the payoff is gunna be that further down the road.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

How it went is Australia (trust me, we had shitloads of guns, buddy) was, people who wanted to hand in the small selection of banned guns, did, the people who didn’t, didn’t. Then regularly the cops do an amnesty day, where you can hand in any illegal guns, no questions asked. If they change their minds. People still own guns. You don’t ban them all, just the unnecessary ones, and you regulate who can buy them, kinda like getting a really easy drivers licence.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

I appreciate your candid attitude but how many mass shootings have you committed? None? Then how does turning in your guns solve this? The state once again failed to do anything when the perpetrator literally admired to be homicidal. Maybe there are gun problems other times, but this fucking wasnt one of those times

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Well it’s both. Having access to such weapons when someone is mentally ill is a bad combination. And having mental health going unchecked just makes it hard to capture the rage.

The fact is this issue is not just the guns or the people. It’s both. And everyone trying to separate them is not understanding the true nature of the problem.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-40 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

It’s already banned. WTF are you on?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points

That was exactly my point, thanks.

Banning things doesn’t make them magically go away.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-76 points

well, they’ve already shat on the rest of the bill of rights. what’s one more?

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

The Founding Fathers would never have signed the Bill of Rights if they thought it would ever be amended in any way, yeah. Great point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Well when laws are woefully out of date they deserve to be shit on. That’s how democracy and progress works.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-24 points

These aren’t laws they’re supposed to be guaranteed rights

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

Are you more free because the GOP refuses to regulate the militia? These people aren’t. Are we more secure? Absolutely fucking not. Go back and read your precious bill of rights and tell us what the point of the second amendment is. Republicans wipe their ass with the bill of rights.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-18 points

what

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

I dunno man, if golfing killed 100,000 people a year don’t you think someone would investigate? Why should this sport be different?

As it is, the most dangerous sport in America (mountain climbing) kills 30 people a year.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

you could argue golfing probably kills way more people you would expect with all that fertilizer and pesticide runoff

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Let’s not let women or black people vote either /s

It’s fine, just because you want a killing machine doesn’t mean you or anyone else is entitled to it. Guns in 1776 were a little different than what we got now. I like guns and I think they’re neat, but the proof is in the pudding. They’re doing more harm than good.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-78 points

Banning is never the solution. All it does is expand the black market. Those who want guns will get them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points

If we have black markets for guns like Australia has them I think we’ll be in a much better position than we are today.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-26 points

Australias were never gunfho as Americans about guns. American history is very short and not too long ago they used guns to get independence from britian, not to mention the civil war. Some believe that they will have to defend the country again in this lifetime, that’s why they value the 2nd amendment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

I mean… The rest of the world proves that you’re wrong. Like the whole world. They don’t have this problem. America does.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Right? Motherfuckers can’t afford rent or a home, but can shell out 10-15 grand for a black market gun lmao.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

The only thing expanding the black market is legal gun sales. Black market guns don’t just fall off the truck leaving the factory.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-23 points

You know guns aren’t that hard to make, right?

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

That isn’t even the issue here. This was an individual who was becoming more mentally disturbed and voluntarily checked himself into a psych hospital. It should not be controversial whatsoever that we enforce laws to remove guns from these individuals until the time an independent psychiatrist clears them.

This isn’t even just because of mass shootings. I’m worried about all the veterans with PTSD and depression who could commit suicide. We need to understand that taking someone’s guns when they’re in that state is helping them and could save their lives.

I will be the first person to protest if they illegitimately do this to people. I’m more concerned about the mental and physical health. Guarantee the return of their guns, or even allow a trusted individual to take them – just create incredibly steep charges if the person with custody of the guns hands them over prematurely and suicide or homicides happen.

None of this should be controversial. It literally helps no one to leave them with the guns. We can figure out a holding process for the firearms to ensure it isn’t abused to take guns away and that people have their property returned. But there should be absolutely no disagreement that people who are actively having mental health crises shouldn’t be near guns until they’ve recovered.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The corollary to your statement is that if we take guns away from people with mental illness, we are removing their ability to overthrow the government. This is a bad thing from the conservative mindset…

We want people to overthrow and kill people who are in the government, right? Right??

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Then let the get it guns in the black market. No reason we have to be selling military-style weapons to crazy people at retail.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points
*

This is a bullshit argument with no merit and you know it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

how successful was the war on drugs?

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

I used to never smoke weed because it was so hard to get it just wasn’t worth the effort. Now that it’s legal and there’s a dispo right there, I always have my weed on me. availability matters.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

On the flipside. Weed was always hard for me to get, so whenever I could I’d buy in bulk and it would last me for years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

Lol what a shit take.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

It’ll absolutely reduce the number of guns purchased and owned by the general population. Gun control isn’t an all or nothing situation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

It would almost certainly reduce the number of guns out there, I don’t think anyone would dispute that. Alcohol prohibition reduced the amount of alcohol and the number of consumers by a huge amount. What people would argue, however, is that Prohibition made the alcohol that was out there much more dangerous. They’d also argue that gun prohibition would reduce formerly legal owners by (made up numbers) 90% while only reducing already prohibited owners by 10%. Is that a net gain or a net loss?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

The black market might expand, but that’s one more deterrent for new attackers. However, the issue is that in the US alone there are something like 300million guns already in circulation or owner by private individuals. So a buyback program would need to happen as well and I don’t know how realistic that is. We’ve had mass shootings for decades and this government can’t do shit about anything any more as all bipartisan good will has completely evaporated and the discourse has become so toxic.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 470K

    Comments