To all of you out there who want no gun control. This blood is on your hands. Screw you and your 2nd amendment "rights."
Edit: 18 dead, 13 wounded
Still waiting for the good guy with a gun they keep repeating
EDIT: OK everyone, yes he was the good guy with a gun. Thanks to everyone for pointing this out
Apparently, the shooter was a firearms instructor. Aka, good guy with a gun turned bad guy with a gun.
This crap will never end until the tools they use to kill are off the streets.
Apparently, the shooter was a firearms instructor.
Every gun owner thinks they're a responsible gun owner.
Not my shocked face!!
...Support for Trump, among other politicians. As shown by the video, Card liked tweets from high-profile conservative figures such as Donald Trump Jnr., Tucker Carlson, Dinesh D'Souza. He also engaged with publications from former house speakers Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan, as per the video.
Probably a "Look down the barrel to make sure there is no bullet in there" type.
I think that's the same error in judgement that leads the vast majority of motorists to believe their driving skills are above average. Forgot what it's called.
Which is the key problem. Everyone is a "responsible gun owner" and "good guy with a gun"...... until sometimes they suddenly aren't anymore. At which point your protection is what was person able to keep under normal circumstances aka what they had in their possession on the moment they had a mental snap.
Was it a semi-auto shoot as fast as your finger pulls rifle with potentially hundreds of rounds in quick swap magazines or do they have a manual action hunting rifle or shotgun with fixed magazine, that need to be manually reloaded.
Do they have a pistol with again potentially hundreds of rounds of quick reload ammunition or don't or maybe a target pistol with fixed magazine.
That is why places around the world have magazine and type restrictions, since they exactly know "checking backgrounds isn't fool proof and now amount of background checking helps again sudden newly emerging situation after the checks have been done".
Sure that 5 round moose hunting rifle will absolutely wreck say those 5 people, but one can't exactly run amock shooting around endlessly with moose rifle. Damage limitation. 5 dead people is better situation, than 22 dead people. As cold calculating as that is.
Everyone is a “responsible gun owner” and “good guy with a gun”… until sometimes they suddenly aren’t anymore.
Yeah, and unpopular opinion likely but I think of this similarly to dogs turning on their owners.
And similarly I'd rather have a Yorkshire terrier go crazy on me than a Pitbull.
cough cough Uvalde cough
didn't come because his mother aborted him /s
Yesterday the right said this WAS a good guy. Just let that sink in.
This guy is exactly the kind of person that the GOP considers a "good guy with a gun". He is a mentally ill veteran firearms instructor. Sounds like a boilerplate Trump supporter. Exactly who they want to have more guns.
It's even worse, GOP would want this guy to be an elementary school teacher as a "solution" to the school shootings. Broken, selfish, heartless cowards
Army vet and gun instructor... This was the good guy
There was a study published from data from the last like.. 10 years, I believe, that show that people with guns are more likely to run away, and people WITHOUT guns, are more likely to jump in and try to stop the shooter.
So ya. These good guys with guns are just pussies that never actually use them for good.
Well yeah if they weren't such gigantic cowards they wouldn't buy guns.
Ya. I live in Canada, and I've never felt the need to own a gun. We have a TON of hunting guns here, but I think the fact we don't allow open carry, changes the thought process of gun owners here, and we don't see them as weapons to point at other people. They are more so seen as a tool for a hobby, like a fishing rod is used for fishing.
And honestly, if you avoid Toronto, violence in general is really low. Toronto is just.. special.
And honestly, if you avoid Toronto, violence in general is really low. Toronto is just… special.
Toronto isn't even in the top ten most dangerous...
That might be because people who own guns have had training in how not to get killed.
I'm not sure that saying gun owners should be quicker to shoot people is the right direction.
The real question is, of those ≈35 cases where an armed civilian stopped a shooter, how many did the cops then shoot the "good guy with a gun?" I know it's happened, and I think at least twice.
Mass shootings themselves are a rounding number, rounding numbers are what we're discussing. Also helps that they almost always choose gun free zones "for no reason" instead of "gun guaranteed zones." Almost like they don't want armed people shooting at them.
And one or two, but just because the cops make an error, doesn't mean the person was wrong to save all those people. That's also why you're told to put the gun away once you've secured the situation, and you're supposed to give a visual description of the shooter when you call it in. You really think it's better to just let people cause whatever harm they want to than for them to stop the violent attacker? Even if it's just a guy with a knife who can "only kill less people than a guy with a gun," "if it even stops just one" right?
"The weapon believed to have been used in the attack was a sniper rifle with .308 caliber bullets, and it was purchased legally this year, officials said."
"Maine court records show that a man named Robert Card who was born on the same date as the person of interest was charged with speeding in 2001 and 2002. No other criminal records were listed in the state's electronic court records system or in several other public records databases."
But also:
"It added that law enforcement said Card 'recently reported mental health issues to include hearing voices and threats to shoot up the National Guard Base in Saco, ME.'
The bulletin said Card was reported to have been committed to a mental health facility for two weeks this summer and then released. NBC News has not been able to independently verify the bulletin's statements about Card's history."
In previous incidents, people committed to mental health facilities didn't have it turn up on their background check unless it was ordered by a judge. That needs to change.
I'm seeing varying reports that he was also convicted of domestic abuse, but this link shows no such charges.
Anyone hearing voices needs to have their guns immediately seized.
That would violate the 1st amendment right to religion.
As the late great Christopher Hitchens once said (paraphrasing here):
When god hears you that's prayer. When you hear god that's mental illness.
This is a common misconception.
If you talk to the imaginary being in the sky that is sane and you should be able to buy a tank or a machine gun.
If the imaginary being in the sky talks to you, you are a crazy person and should be limited to 6 rifles or less.
Heyoooo.
Good
Yeah, but since no further help will be forthcoming, who will admit to it?
But my dog told me it was OK for me to keep a rifle.
Well if the dog says so how can we disagree?
Give him a treat and some pats for me.
Agreed, including all the Evangelical preachers claiming "God spoke to me..."
Not very many people have argued that people who have actually made violent threats and been institutionalized should be buying guns.
This guy was a firearms instructor. Literally a good guy with a gun turned into a bad guy with a gun.
The key point is that he was also recently institutionalized after making threats and SHOULD have had his guns seized, even under existing law.
Agreed, but we haven't been enforcing red flag laws consistently since people start bitching about "mah rites" whenever you try to disarm someone threatening to kill their ex-GF.
The referenced law isn't "red flag laws," those are something else in which simply reporting "my roomate or ex said bad things, proof? No why would I need that, take the guns first due process second, you heard Trump!"
Problem is, people do have rights, and as such before you can violate them you have to actually have a reason, like "them being involuntarily commited for hearing vioces and expressing homicidal ideation."
Red flag laws are written in such a way that your roomate can call them on you because he's mad you ate the last Oreo™, so the cops come and take your right to own guns after a secret hearing you weren't invited to, but it's ok because you will have the almost impossible opportunity to prove "nuh uh" in court 1 year after the date of arbitrary confiscation, unfortunately by then the cops may have already "destroyed" (read: stolen) the property they're now supposed to return so even if you do win that case: Oh well, no punishment for the cops, they can shoot innocent people with impunity, you think they'll get talked to for theft?
Of course that gets pushback, just like any other bad idea Trump supported (albeit from a different group in this case). Most people are however fine with the law we already have that could have prevented this, problem is people need to do their goddamn job and should have taken his shit/input his commital to NICs.
Can you find any precedent of someone getting red-flagged for something as simple as taking the last Oreo? From what I understand, there is a burden of proof on red-flag laws, it usually takes a judge to issue the order to confiscate. Cops are not given unilateral power to disarm someone without any procedure.
I like how you say this...
Problem is, people do have rights, and as such before you can violate them you have to actually have a reason...
...And then immediately say this...
like “them being involuntarily commited for hearing vioces and expressing homicidal ideation.”
Literally, involuntary committing someone is a violation of their rights, but it is an violation that is well established by law. Just like say...taking away someone's guns for a period of time while they are openly threatening people and displaying extreme anti-social behavior
At the moment, they are only a thing in a few states and I'm not sure how often they're used even there. In some states like Florida it does require some proof, but in my state, while the proposed law got close but was not passed, in addition to everything I said above the complaintant was protected from being charged with perjory in the event it was found out they lied in the inital case.
Of course, the complaintant never could have told the judge "he took the last oreo," if that is what you mean, they would be required to lie, but tbh a secret hearing you're not invited to is easy for them to lie at so long as the burden of proof is as low as "he said..."
but it is an violation that is well established by law.
And reasonable. Broadening that to allow anyone who knows you to go to a judge in a secret hearing and say "he bad" with no other proof and bam 1yr without the right to self defense if you ever get it back all because he said she said is "unreasonable." It is also not well established by law considering all the laws are pretty new and all different in every state that has implimented them VS federal law that is reported (well supposed to be, they need to do their job) into NICs since like '96, and also requires a more "standard" burden of proof.
I mean be real, if the red flag laws didn't have a lower burden of proof than involuntary commitment, what would be the point of them existing? We already have IVCs, which have the added bonus of at least some caliber of mental health professional, if the burden of proof is the same the only difference is instead of attempting to actually get the person help all you do is temporarily take their guns
..until they buy more (legally or otherwise), make one, or stab someone, the danger is still there and hasn't been helped at all, with the IVC they show up in the national database instead of the just California database, with the red flag laws the cops show up and leave you alone with the angry, if disarmed, person, with IVCs they are forced into a facility, allowing someone time to escape, or time for the person to cool off with the ativan and doctors. I mean, the only reason for them is "I'm right." The question is "is that good or bad."
I'm firmly on the side of "it's bad, innocent until proven guilty is good."
openly threatening people and displaying extreme anti-social behavior
You mean things that can get you IVC'd? So IVC, red flag laws are often built for abuse, you don't need them unless you intend to abuse it, and if they're not built to abuse they are functionally the same as an IVC just "less good anyway."
People don't get their guns taken away after literally threatening to kill people and getting institutionalized and you are worried about it happening over Oreos? How about we START with the self-identified violent maniacs and then worry about the oreo scenario?
Well, if it is really about enforcing the existing laws to you, then the current laws should be fine even though you agree with me they should be enforced. How about START with the current laws and then worry about the red flag laws?
Most of these laws, and most of the historic gun control in the US, is really intended to be used to keep guns from the "wrong sort" of people, and that means leftists and brown people generally. Crazy white guys were never the target of any prior firearms legislation or enforcement mechanism. That's really the core of the problem here.
What was his ratemyprofessor rating?
Gallows humor really does hit different when your 2 hours into doom scrolling lol
True, but continuing to vote for representatives who refuse to have any conversation about gun control still makes them complicit in this behavior.
And Republicans will still refuse to do any sort of enforcement law.
Someone once told me, be careful of your thoughts for your thoughts may affect your words, be careful of your words because your words may come to become your actions, be careful of your actions for your actions may reflect on your character.
If you ask me, owning a firearm and making violent threats don't necessarily mean actions, but I agree that there's a definitive correlation. I guess that I still believe that the action itself is the most honest and serious commitment to something a person can express.
I think the fundamental issues with guns is that they SUBSTANTIALLY shorten the time and effort to put thoughts into action. Thinking "man, i want to kill everyone here." is a pretty abstract thought, until you actually have the means to kill everyone there right at hand.
Jupp. And it's so effortless. Try to pull that shit with a knife.
It doesn’t matter. Not what you say or how many people get slaughtered because of their powertripping fantasies.
The last time I argued with these folks, it was on r/Europe I think. Besides the rabid antics their arguments were…interesting? My favourite was „Imagine needing another man to protect your home“. Some time later one of them, a young English man, even became famous. By killing his mother and a couple of others. And of course it was a super incel with a multitude of mental health issues.
The point I’m trying to make is, they don’t care. Or at the very least they are deluded to a point that they don’t see what damage it does.
There are so many guns in the US right now that it's ridiculous. Gun control here would be great... If it were done a hundred years ago. I'm not saying I'm against common sense laws, but like... Pandoras box is open here.
There are 120 firearms for every 100 civilians that live in the U.S. We have 46% of the total worldwide statistic for civilian ownership. The US makes up only a meager 331.9 million out of 7.89 billion people worldwide. That means 4.2% of the world owns 46% of the guns... And those people are all American.
On top of this, some of the most heinous shootings in US history were performed with illegally obtained weapons. Columbine is one of the examples most will recognize.
I'm not leading up to anything here, I just wanted to educate everyone on how fucked we are.
I'm not leading up to anything here, I just wanted to educate everyone on how fucked we are.
Definitely, but your argument is unfortunately what keeps us from ever doing anything about it. Thinking that it can't be done is just not good enough.
Age limits and rubber bullets for veterans would probably help
America has too many guns to ever have gun control. Move to Canada if you want that peace of mind.
People have vices, violence is a vice too
I don't know anyone who picks up a six pack of violence on their way home from work. Just kidding lmao I know what you mean.
This one shooter is likely to nearly match the TOTAL homicide rate for Maine last year (30). I think that when a state is looking at HALF THIER TOTAL MURDERS being from a mass shooting event, its time to stop treating them as an insignificant aberration and as a legitimate contributor to overall violence.
Problem is statistically they are an anomoly. You're more likely to shoot yourself than be a victim of any definition of mass shooting by any compiler.
Your point is more a point of "how statistics can be used to mislead." It sounds like a lot when you say you "doubled" something, for instance, but if there weren't a lot to begin with (say 2,) there will still not be a lot of the thing when doubled, (like 4).
Getting shot at all is an anomaly, but if its a big enough problem to care about AT ALL (and clearly anyone who owns a gun for defense cares about that anomaly a great deal) then mass shootings are indeed a significant contributor to that issue.
Also, a person's personal risk of suicide is highly dependent on their own health and choices. I can exert control over that risk by simply not owning a gun. How do I mitigate my risk of being the victim of a mass shooting? Just don't go outside?
You might not be aware but people who own guns for defense aren't only "worried" about other people with guns, you can also use them legally to defend yourself against knives, blunt instruments, multiple attackers, and any other deadly threats. Idk about you but I'd rather brandish or even fire a gun at a guy than be stabbed or sliced open by him. I'd also rather be able to shoot a mass shooter if the opportunity presented itself than simply die in the same scenario, even if you "shelter in place” if he gets in the room I'd rather be able to make a last stand than hold my hands up like the old guy in the red sweater (guess I'll die meme.)
Also that isn't actually true, if you're suicidal and don't own a gun you probably own some [OTC MEDS REDACTED], hell you may even already have a real drug problem that happens to accidentally kill +96,000 people a year (36,000 more than guns including suicide), you don't just "not do it" because "no gun." (Also anyone considering, don't, seek help.) Personally I think the best way to mitigate your chance of dying in a mass shooting is to become someone willing and able to save yourself should that proverbial lighning strike. What's the best way to mitigate your chance of fire? No electricity and never cook, right? Well that isn't realistic, so we buy fire extinguishers. Sure we have the fire department, but we also recognize it's best if people on site can stop the fire early with the extinguisher because they can act quicker, similar principles apply to the mass shootings, it's just that guns are a bit more of a responsibilty than fire extinguisgers, thus the CCWs and NICs checks, and all that.
Doubled , troubled, shmuttled. I think 🤔 You're all missing the point here. It doesn't matter if it happened in Maine , it doesn't matter who done it. The issue is people died from a mass shooting. So it means in general; no matter how high or low the risk of You personally getting shot in a mass shooting; you can be one of those victims at any time.
People literally died; and that means that You or I, our family/friends can be next. It's happened sooo many times that at the very least means that you might meet a victim of a mass shooting in your lifetime. And even if You don't; well we are all still effected by the news and knowledge that tomorrow "You or I" can be next.
It's a fear and an issue that usually doesn't exist in full democracies. But here in USA we got a flawed democracy with no hope 😕😞 of ever fixing that problem.
Thx for reading.
You can always die in more ways than you can imagine, tomorrow is never guaranteed, so make the most of today.
While your argument is sound it doesn't dissuade from the point the preceding argument was trying to make. Which maybe you missed, or maybe you just like to debate? Guns as they are now in this country are a big fucking problem. Anomalies are just as bad, and likely preventable, as any other thing with a higher number on some chart. Many might argue >0 is a number to large when it comes to loss of life.
Except that they're asserting they aren't exactly what they are, a statistical anomoly, and they are attempting to fear tactic people into "zomg half?!"
Good luck getting the 600,000,000 guns out of civilian hands who don't want to give them up with no registry to know who/where they are, and the trillions of rnds of ammo stockpiled with them, lmk how that works out for you (though since it would involve killing a lot of people, with guns, for the crime of wanting to retain their legally purchased property that happens to also be guns, I suspect I'll already be aware.)
I agreed with your factual correction. I'm not sure why you're coming at me so hot.
I will maintain that while their facts may have been incorrect the intent isn't what you seem to want it to be. Of course the op of the reply we're replying to is the only one who can say.
Also, yeah, you're right no systemic change has ever been successful ever so why try. /S
Take a bow conservatives. The blood is on your hands.
They're cool with it.
If Conservative used bows, we wouldn't be in this situation.
Get rid of guns and you can stop this.
It’s the most basic solution that even conservatives can understand.
They seem to apply the following logic to everything else:
Stop immigrants? Build wall
Stop terrorists? Kill them
Stop homeless? Bus them
Stop poor? Tax cut
Stop mass shootings? Ban guns
Ok wait a minute. The conservatives are wrong on all 4 of those. So are you saying that logic would be wrong for banning guns also? Not sure which argument you are making here.
What I’m saying is that if you applied their logic it should hold true that they’d just ban guns.
But they don’t, which is weird.
they don't like immigrants, the homeless, poor, etc. They do like guns.
One of the more common threads across these shootings is that the shooters tend to have some sort of mental issues that are painfully obvious and seem to get reported well before the shooting occurs. But the shooter's illness often festers in solitude, just circling a mental drain and getting more deranged until some sort of trigger sets them off. IMO, there needs to be a system that encourages gun owners to keep tabs on each other and vouch for each other (else lose their own license), and also require enlistment in the National Guard (with some sort of reduced requirements made for physical disabilities), with regular mental health screenings to check for stuff like this. Owning a gun should be treated as a huge responsibility, not something that just gets handed out to any dipshits just because they're 'Merican.
Getting rid of guns altogether would be great, but that just won't fly in America, there's just no chance of that happening anytime soon.
No one's even saying you have to ban all guns! Just common sense gun control would have prevented this! The dude was in an asylum and heard voices!!!
If they had taken the guns of this obviously troubled person, all those innocent people would have been unharmed...
No, no I'm saying ban all guns. At least one person is saying that.
The big secret is ful auto or not doesn't matter, that gun will shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. And someone like This I'm sure knows how to bump fire from damn near any position.
Yeah, people think that being able to fire off a whole magazine with one squeeze of the trigger means they can mow down 30 people like a gangster from an old black and white movie.
If anything, full auto would just make their shots less accurate and they'd run out of ammo faster in the heat of the moment.
I would use burst fire fairly often but otherwise semi auto was plenty effective. Outside of really rare circumstances fully auto would do little more than show of force and waste ammo.
Lewiston, about 35 miles north of Portland, emerged as a major center for African immigration into Maine. The Somali population, which numbers in the thousands, has changed the demographics of the once overwhelmingly white mill city into one of the most diverse in northern New England.
any indication that the crowd was any particular complexion?
I haven’t read anything about it, so I can’t say for sure, but I work in the Lewiston area and I’ve heard both the bowling alley and bar to be more “local” oriented businesses.
The Walmart distribution center is a weird one though, because it’s not really a store front.
Whatever his motivations are, it breaks my heart to see it happen in our neck of the woods.
I’m so sorry. I hope you didn’t lose anyone close to you tonight
The maine news was reporting that he had recently sought mental health support for schizophrenia and hearing voices.
White military guy, firearm instructor, buzz cut, wrap around sunglasses. Bet he knew where he was going.
did they ask the guy with the huge gun what United States American political group he affiliates with? I feel like that's the question everyone's asking but I don't know because I didn't actually look
Excerpt from the US version of the Prayer of the Lord: "... and give us today our daily breadactive shooter..."
At least 22 dead and 60 wounded.
To all of you out there who want no gun control. This blood is on your hands. Screw you and your 2nd amendment "rights."
Edit: 18 dead, 13 wounded
Still waiting for the good guy with a gun they keep repeating
EDIT: OK everyone, yes he was the good guy with a gun. Thanks to everyone for pointing this out
Apparently, the shooter was a firearms instructor. Aka, good guy with a gun turned bad guy with a gun.
This crap will never end until the tools they use to kill are off the streets.
Every gun owner thinks they're a responsible gun owner.
Not my shocked face!!
...Support for Trump, among other politicians. As shown by the video, Card liked tweets from high-profile conservative figures such as Donald Trump Jnr., Tucker Carlson, Dinesh D'Souza. He also engaged with publications from former house speakers Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan, as per the video.
Probably a "Look down the barrel to make sure there is no bullet in there" type.
I think that's the same error in judgement that leads the vast majority of motorists to believe their driving skills are above average. Forgot what it's called.
Which is the key problem. Everyone is a "responsible gun owner" and "good guy with a gun"...... until sometimes they suddenly aren't anymore. At which point your protection is what was person able to keep under normal circumstances aka what they had in their possession on the moment they had a mental snap.
Was it a semi-auto shoot as fast as your finger pulls rifle with potentially hundreds of rounds in quick swap magazines or do they have a manual action hunting rifle or shotgun with fixed magazine, that need to be manually reloaded.
Do they have a pistol with again potentially hundreds of rounds of quick reload ammunition or don't or maybe a target pistol with fixed magazine.
That is why places around the world have magazine and type restrictions, since they exactly know "checking backgrounds isn't fool proof and now amount of background checking helps again sudden newly emerging situation after the checks have been done".
Sure that 5 round moose hunting rifle will absolutely wreck say those 5 people, but one can't exactly run amock shooting around endlessly with moose rifle. Damage limitation. 5 dead people is better situation, than 22 dead people. As cold calculating as that is.
Yeah, and unpopular opinion likely but I think of this similarly to dogs turning on their owners.
And similarly I'd rather have a Yorkshire terrier go crazy on me than a Pitbull.
cough cough Uvalde cough
didn't come because his mother aborted him /s
Yesterday the right said this WAS a good guy. Just let that sink in.
This guy is exactly the kind of person that the GOP considers a "good guy with a gun". He is a mentally ill veteran firearms instructor. Sounds like a boilerplate Trump supporter. Exactly who they want to have more guns.
It's even worse, GOP would want this guy to be an elementary school teacher as a "solution" to the school shootings. Broken, selfish, heartless cowards
Army vet and gun instructor... This was the good guy
There was a study published from data from the last like.. 10 years, I believe, that show that people with guns are more likely to run away, and people WITHOUT guns, are more likely to jump in and try to stop the shooter.
So ya. These good guys with guns are just pussies that never actually use them for good.
Well yeah if they weren't such gigantic cowards they wouldn't buy guns.
Ya. I live in Canada, and I've never felt the need to own a gun. We have a TON of hunting guns here, but I think the fact we don't allow open carry, changes the thought process of gun owners here, and we don't see them as weapons to point at other people. They are more so seen as a tool for a hobby, like a fishing rod is used for fishing.
And honestly, if you avoid Toronto, violence in general is really low. Toronto is just.. special.
Toronto isn't even in the top ten most dangerous...
That might be because people who own guns have had training in how not to get killed.
I'm not sure that saying gun owners should be quicker to shoot people is the right direction.
https://crimeresearch.org/2023/08/cases-where-armed-citizens-have-stopped-active-shooter-incidents/
The real question is, of those ≈35 cases where an armed civilian stopped a shooter, how many did the cops then shoot the "good guy with a gun?" I know it's happened, and I think at least twice.
Also 35/thousands is a rounding error.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
Mass shootings themselves are a rounding number, rounding numbers are what we're discussing. Also helps that they almost always choose gun free zones "for no reason" instead of "gun guaranteed zones." Almost like they don't want armed people shooting at them.
And one or two, but just because the cops make an error, doesn't mean the person was wrong to save all those people. That's also why you're told to put the gun away once you've secured the situation, and you're supposed to give a visual description of the shooter when you call it in. You really think it's better to just let people cause whatever harm they want to than for them to stop the violent attacker? Even if it's just a guy with a knife who can "only kill less people than a guy with a gun," "if it even stops just one" right?
Predicting a failure in background checks here allowing him to get a gun:
Edit
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-maine-shooting-suspect-says-mental-health-deteriorated-rapidly-rcna122353
"The weapon believed to have been used in the attack was a sniper rifle with .308 caliber bullets, and it was purchased legally this year, officials said."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lewiston-maine-shooting-robert-card-what-know-rcna122262
"Maine court records show that a man named Robert Card who was born on the same date as the person of interest was charged with speeding in 2001 and 2002. No other criminal records were listed in the state's electronic court records system or in several other public records databases."
But also:
"It added that law enforcement said Card 'recently reported mental health issues to include hearing voices and threats to shoot up the National Guard Base in Saco, ME.'
The bulletin said Card was reported to have been committed to a mental health facility for two weeks this summer and then released. NBC News has not been able to independently verify the bulletin's statements about Card's history."
In previous incidents, people committed to mental health facilities didn't have it turn up on their background check unless it was ordered by a judge. That needs to change.
I'm seeing varying reports that he was also convicted of domestic abuse, but this link shows no such charges.
Anyone hearing voices needs to have their guns immediately seized.
That would violate the 1st amendment right to religion.
As the late great Christopher Hitchens once said (paraphrasing here):
When god hears you that's prayer. When you hear god that's mental illness.
This is a common misconception.
If you talk to the imaginary being in the sky that is sane and you should be able to buy a tank or a machine gun.
If the imaginary being in the sky talks to you, you are a crazy person and should be limited to 6 rifles or less.
Heyoooo.
Good
Yeah, but since no further help will be forthcoming, who will admit to it?
But my dog told me it was OK for me to keep a rifle.
Well if the dog says so how can we disagree? Give him a treat and some pats for me.
Agreed, including all the Evangelical preachers claiming "God spoke to me..."
Not very many people have argued that people who have actually made violent threats and been institutionalized should be buying guns.
The 5th Circuit Court (with at least one judge appointed by Trump) has ruled that removing the guns from a violent domestic abuser violates his rights: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/02/09/guns-domestic-abuse-second-amendment/
This guy was a firearms instructor. Literally a good guy with a gun turned into a bad guy with a gun.
The key point is that he was also recently institutionalized after making threats and SHOULD have had his guns seized, even under existing law.
Agreed, but we haven't been enforcing red flag laws consistently since people start bitching about "mah rites" whenever you try to disarm someone threatening to kill their ex-GF.
The referenced law isn't "red flag laws," those are something else in which simply reporting "my roomate or ex said bad things, proof? No why would I need that, take the guns first due process second, you heard Trump!"
Problem is, people do have rights, and as such before you can violate them you have to actually have a reason, like "them being involuntarily commited for hearing vioces and expressing homicidal ideation."
Red flag laws are written in such a way that your roomate can call them on you because he's mad you ate the last Oreo™, so the cops come and take your right to own guns after a secret hearing you weren't invited to, but it's ok because you will have the almost impossible opportunity to prove "nuh uh" in court 1 year after the date of arbitrary confiscation, unfortunately by then the cops may have already "destroyed" (read: stolen) the property they're now supposed to return so even if you do win that case: Oh well, no punishment for the cops, they can shoot innocent people with impunity, you think they'll get talked to for theft?
Of course that gets pushback, just like any other bad idea Trump supported (albeit from a different group in this case). Most people are however fine with the law we already have that could have prevented this, problem is people need to do their goddamn job and should have taken his shit/input his commital to NICs.
Can you find any precedent of someone getting red-flagged for something as simple as taking the last Oreo? From what I understand, there is a burden of proof on red-flag laws, it usually takes a judge to issue the order to confiscate. Cops are not given unilateral power to disarm someone without any procedure.
I like how you say this...
...And then immediately say this...
Literally, involuntary committing someone is a violation of their rights, but it is an violation that is well established by law. Just like say...taking away someone's guns for a period of time while they are openly threatening people and displaying extreme anti-social behavior
At the moment, they are only a thing in a few states and I'm not sure how often they're used even there. In some states like Florida it does require some proof, but in my state, while the proposed law got close but was not passed, in addition to everything I said above the complaintant was protected from being charged with perjory in the event it was found out they lied in the inital case.
Of course, the complaintant never could have told the judge "he took the last oreo," if that is what you mean, they would be required to lie, but tbh a secret hearing you're not invited to is easy for them to lie at so long as the burden of proof is as low as "he said..."
And reasonable. Broadening that to allow anyone who knows you to go to a judge in a secret hearing and say "he bad" with no other proof and bam 1yr without the right to self defense if you ever get it back all because he said she said is "unreasonable." It is also not well established by law considering all the laws are pretty new and all different in every state that has implimented them VS federal law that is reported (well supposed to be, they need to do their job) into NICs since like '96, and also requires a more "standard" burden of proof.
I mean be real, if the red flag laws didn't have a lower burden of proof than involuntary commitment, what would be the point of them existing? We already have IVCs, which have the added bonus of at least some caliber of mental health professional, if the burden of proof is the same the only difference is instead of attempting to actually get the person help all you do is temporarily take their guns ..until they buy more (legally or otherwise), make one, or stab someone, the danger is still there and hasn't been helped at all, with the IVC they show up in the national database instead of the just California database, with the red flag laws the cops show up and leave you alone with the angry, if disarmed, person, with IVCs they are forced into a facility, allowing someone time to escape, or time for the person to cool off with the ativan and doctors. I mean, the only reason for them is "I'm right." The question is "is that good or bad."
I'm firmly on the side of "it's bad, innocent until proven guilty is good."
You mean things that can get you IVC'd? So IVC, red flag laws are often built for abuse, you don't need them unless you intend to abuse it, and if they're not built to abuse they are functionally the same as an IVC just "less good anyway."
People don't get their guns taken away after literally threatening to kill people and getting institutionalized and you are worried about it happening over Oreos? How about we START with the self-identified violent maniacs and then worry about the oreo scenario?
Well, if it is really about enforcing the existing laws to you, then the current laws should be fine even though you agree with me they should be enforced. How about START with the current laws and then worry about the red flag laws?
Most of these laws, and most of the historic gun control in the US, is really intended to be used to keep guns from the "wrong sort" of people, and that means leftists and brown people generally. Crazy white guys were never the target of any prior firearms legislation or enforcement mechanism. That's really the core of the problem here.
What was his ratemyprofessor rating?
Gallows humor really does hit different when your 2 hours into doom scrolling lol
True, but continuing to vote for representatives who refuse to have any conversation about gun control still makes them complicit in this behavior.
And Republicans will still refuse to do any sort of enforcement law.
Someone once told me, be careful of your thoughts for your thoughts may affect your words, be careful of your words because your words may come to become your actions, be careful of your actions for your actions may reflect on your character.
If you ask me, owning a firearm and making violent threats don't necessarily mean actions, but I agree that there's a definitive correlation. I guess that I still believe that the action itself is the most honest and serious commitment to something a person can express.
I think the fundamental issues with guns is that they SUBSTANTIALLY shorten the time and effort to put thoughts into action. Thinking "man, i want to kill everyone here." is a pretty abstract thought, until you actually have the means to kill everyone there right at hand.
Jupp. And it's so effortless. Try to pull that shit with a knife.
It doesn’t matter. Not what you say or how many people get slaughtered because of their powertripping fantasies.
The last time I argued with these folks, it was on r/Europe I think. Besides the rabid antics their arguments were…interesting? My favourite was „Imagine needing another man to protect your home“. Some time later one of them, a young English man, even became famous. By killing his mother and a couple of others. And of course it was a super incel with a multitude of mental health issues.
The point I’m trying to make is, they don’t care. Or at the very least they are deluded to a point that they don’t see what damage it does.
There are so many guns in the US right now that it's ridiculous. Gun control here would be great... If it were done a hundred years ago. I'm not saying I'm against common sense laws, but like... Pandoras box is open here.
There are 120 firearms for every 100 civilians that live in the U.S. We have 46% of the total worldwide statistic for civilian ownership. The US makes up only a meager 331.9 million out of 7.89 billion people worldwide. That means 4.2% of the world owns 46% of the guns... And those people are all American.
On top of this, some of the most heinous shootings in US history were performed with illegally obtained weapons. Columbine is one of the examples most will recognize.
I'm not leading up to anything here, I just wanted to educate everyone on how fucked we are.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership
Definitely, but your argument is unfortunately what keeps us from ever doing anything about it. Thinking that it can't be done is just not good enough.
Age limits and rubber bullets for veterans would probably help
America has too many guns to ever have gun control. Move to Canada if you want that peace of mind.
People have vices, violence is a vice too
I don't know anyone who picks up a six pack of violence on their way home from work. Just kidding lmao I know what you mean.
Just a nornal day in US
Yah but not for maine. It's a very quite state
This one shooter is likely to nearly match the TOTAL homicide rate for Maine last year (30). I think that when a state is looking at HALF THIER TOTAL MURDERS being from a mass shooting event, its time to stop treating them as an insignificant aberration and as a legitimate contributor to overall violence.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/mass-shootings-are-rare-firearm-suicides-are-much-more-common-and-kill-more-americans
Problem is statistically they are an anomoly. You're more likely to shoot yourself than be a victim of any definition of mass shooting by any compiler.
Your point is more a point of "how statistics can be used to mislead." It sounds like a lot when you say you "doubled" something, for instance, but if there weren't a lot to begin with (say 2,) there will still not be a lot of the thing when doubled, (like 4).
Getting shot at all is an anomaly, but if its a big enough problem to care about AT ALL (and clearly anyone who owns a gun for defense cares about that anomaly a great deal) then mass shootings are indeed a significant contributor to that issue.
Also, a person's personal risk of suicide is highly dependent on their own health and choices. I can exert control over that risk by simply not owning a gun. How do I mitigate my risk of being the victim of a mass shooting? Just don't go outside?
You might not be aware but people who own guns for defense aren't only "worried" about other people with guns, you can also use them legally to defend yourself against knives, blunt instruments, multiple attackers, and any other deadly threats. Idk about you but I'd rather brandish or even fire a gun at a guy than be stabbed or sliced open by him. I'd also rather be able to shoot a mass shooter if the opportunity presented itself than simply die in the same scenario, even if you "shelter in place” if he gets in the room I'd rather be able to make a last stand than hold my hands up like the old guy in the red sweater (guess I'll die meme.)
Also that isn't actually true, if you're suicidal and don't own a gun you probably own some [OTC MEDS REDACTED], hell you may even already have a real drug problem that happens to accidentally kill +96,000 people a year (36,000 more than guns including suicide), you don't just "not do it" because "no gun." (Also anyone considering, don't, seek help.) Personally I think the best way to mitigate your chance of dying in a mass shooting is to become someone willing and able to save yourself should that proverbial lighning strike. What's the best way to mitigate your chance of fire? No electricity and never cook, right? Well that isn't realistic, so we buy fire extinguishers. Sure we have the fire department, but we also recognize it's best if people on site can stop the fire early with the extinguisher because they can act quicker, similar principles apply to the mass shootings, it's just that guns are a bit more of a responsibilty than fire extinguisgers, thus the CCWs and NICs checks, and all that.
Doubled , troubled, shmuttled. I think 🤔 You're all missing the point here. It doesn't matter if it happened in Maine , it doesn't matter who done it. The issue is people died from a mass shooting. So it means in general; no matter how high or low the risk of You personally getting shot in a mass shooting; you can be one of those victims at any time.
People literally died; and that means that You or I, our family/friends can be next. It's happened sooo many times that at the very least means that you might meet a victim of a mass shooting in your lifetime. And even if You don't; well we are all still effected by the news and knowledge that tomorrow "You or I" can be next. It's a fear and an issue that usually doesn't exist in full democracies. But here in USA we got a flawed democracy with no hope 😕😞 of ever fixing that problem.
Thx for reading.
You can always die in more ways than you can imagine, tomorrow is never guaranteed, so make the most of today.
While your argument is sound it doesn't dissuade from the point the preceding argument was trying to make. Which maybe you missed, or maybe you just like to debate? Guns as they are now in this country are a big fucking problem. Anomalies are just as bad, and likely preventable, as any other thing with a higher number on some chart. Many might argue >0 is a number to large when it comes to loss of life.
Except that they're asserting they aren't exactly what they are, a statistical anomoly, and they are attempting to fear tactic people into "zomg half?!"
Good luck getting the 600,000,000 guns out of civilian hands who don't want to give them up with no registry to know who/where they are, and the trillions of rnds of ammo stockpiled with them, lmk how that works out for you (though since it would involve killing a lot of people, with guns, for the crime of wanting to retain their legally purchased property that happens to also be guns, I suspect I'll already be aware.)
I agreed with your factual correction. I'm not sure why you're coming at me so hot.
I will maintain that while their facts may have been incorrect the intent isn't what you seem to want it to be. Of course the op of the reply we're replying to is the only one who can say.
Also, yeah, you're right no systemic change has ever been successful ever so why try. /S
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No, it really isn't.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
Take a bow conservatives. The blood is on your hands.
They're cool with it.
If Conservative used bows, we wouldn't be in this situation.
Get rid of guns and you can stop this.
It’s the most basic solution that even conservatives can understand.
They seem to apply the following logic to everything else:
Stop immigrants? Build wall
Stop terrorists? Kill them
Stop homeless? Bus them
Stop poor? Tax cut
Stop mass shootings? Ban guns
Ok wait a minute. The conservatives are wrong on all 4 of those. So are you saying that logic would be wrong for banning guns also? Not sure which argument you are making here.
What I’m saying is that if you applied their logic it should hold true that they’d just ban guns.
But they don’t, which is weird.
they don't like immigrants, the homeless, poor, etc. They do like guns.
One of the more common threads across these shootings is that the shooters tend to have some sort of mental issues that are painfully obvious and seem to get reported well before the shooting occurs. But the shooter's illness often festers in solitude, just circling a mental drain and getting more deranged until some sort of trigger sets them off. IMO, there needs to be a system that encourages gun owners to keep tabs on each other and vouch for each other (else lose their own license), and also require enlistment in the National Guard (with some sort of reduced requirements made for physical disabilities), with regular mental health screenings to check for stuff like this. Owning a gun should be treated as a huge responsibility, not something that just gets handed out to any dipshits just because they're 'Merican.
Getting rid of guns altogether would be great, but that just won't fly in America, there's just no chance of that happening anytime soon.
No one's even saying you have to ban all guns! Just common sense gun control would have prevented this! The dude was in an asylum and heard voices!!!
If they had taken the guns of this obviously troubled person, all those innocent people would have been unharmed...
No, no I'm saying ban all guns. At least one person is saying that.
I love how ppl who know nothing about guns are talking about how "it can't be full auto because $$$$"
Shut the fuck up u fools ..
U can buy a $20 auto sear online that makes any ar full auto. Yes its illegal. No one cares.
I don't see people saying that.
The big secret is ful auto or not doesn't matter, that gun will shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. And someone like This I'm sure knows how to bump fire from damn near any position.
Yeah, people think that being able to fire off a whole magazine with one squeeze of the trigger means they can mow down 30 people like a gangster from an old black and white movie.
If anything, full auto would just make their shots less accurate and they'd run out of ammo faster in the heat of the moment.
I would use burst fire fairly often but otherwise semi auto was plenty effective. Outside of really rare circumstances fully auto would do little more than show of force and waste ammo.
22 dead, 50-60 injured.
That poor ER
this happened at a crowded bowling alley
any indication that the crowd was any particular complexion?
I haven’t read anything about it, so I can’t say for sure, but I work in the Lewiston area and I’ve heard both the bowling alley and bar to be more “local” oriented businesses.
The Walmart distribution center is a weird one though, because it’s not really a store front.
Whatever his motivations are, it breaks my heart to see it happen in our neck of the woods.
I’m so sorry. I hope you didn’t lose anyone close to you tonight
The maine news was reporting that he had recently sought mental health support for schizophrenia and hearing voices.
White military guy, firearm instructor, buzz cut, wrap around sunglasses. Bet he knew where he was going.
No. There was a youth league Wednesday, though.
The shooter is still at large.
Robert Card
https://heavy.com/news/robert-card/
did they ask the guy with the huge gun what United States American political group he affiliates with? I feel like that's the question everyone's asking but I don't know because I didn't actually look
Excerpt from the US version of the Prayer of the Lord: "... and give us today our daily
breadactive shooter..."