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 View context
-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
9 points

And some believe in Santa Claus. That doesn’t mean you should base laws on fairy tales.

If you want to defend your country with guns, join the military. Become a reservist.

Worshipping fear and delusions is the exact reason people like them shouldn’t own guns.

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
3 points

Most of the illicit guns people are buying are like $100 hi-point pistols. They’re not buying illegal ARs (also that’s what the Mexican cartels are doing).

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
32 points

Then why isn’t London full of homemade guns? If it’s not the availability of guns, then what is the reason the US has so many shootings?

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

There are currently more guns than humans in the United States, and the reason is because industry mass manufacturers millions of these per year and they go on to the open market. While people could illegally manufacture ghost guns from a home workshop, if they were illegal these supply would be greatly diminished.

I don’t really think that’s an argument you can make.

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
3 points

I know you’re playing devil’s advocate, but I’d point out that I don’t want to take away guns from people with mental illness, I want to temporarily confiscate them from people who are suicidal and homicidal until they receive proper treatment and stabilize.

After all, if they commit suicide, they won’t be very helpful for your (conservatives) ability to overthrow the government. They need to be alive, no?

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
7 points

For the drugs, really successful. Drugs are doing great! Lol

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

At raising prices for people with money to pay off the law? Very

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
0 points

it’s called an analogy you donkey

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
8 points

Most people who do not have guns are totally uninterested in obtaining them. They currently face danger only from people who have them. They would face less danger if fewer people had them. This is purely statistical fact and is observable across the entire world. The US is unique both in gun laws and in gun deaths.

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