361
Lewiston, Maine shootings leave at least 16 dead
(www.cnn.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
361 points (96.4% liked)
News
36366 readers
877 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
When I searched to see if Maine had red flag laws, all the top results were people opposed to them.
There's a good chance the shooter was one of them, since it looks like he is a "responsible gun owner" that's even more "responsible" than most.
Of course, the pro-gun crowd will seethe if you call him that, but the reality is that he had their full support when he bought a semi-automatic weapon. He still had it when he started hearing voices. He still had it when he started prowling the streets in open carry. Fuck, they probably would have given him the benefit of the doubt when he raised it to fire on an innocent person, as long as he was staunch Republican.
But the moment he pulled the trigger, it becomes "Oh that guy? Yeah he was never one of us. Doesn't count".
Then they'll claim its a mental health problem because he had mental health issues and the gun he used to maximise the number of people he killed and wounded had nothing to do with it.
Then they'll insist that they'll totally entertain the idea of gun control after a mental healthcare system is built that can cure every single man, woman and child in America of serious mental health problems, even the ones that don't want care, so completely they can be trusted with guns for the rest of their lives because they'll never falter and also fuck you we're not paying for it.
He had mental healthcare.
He also had a legally purchased AR-15.
He legally did not. They ask you on the BG check if you have any mental health issues.
Tell me again how gun control laws would have stopped this?
How about I detail all the ways he could have gotten a gun under your laws that you enable that are in effect right now?
He bought the guns before he had mental health issues and red flag laws weren't used because police are far-right and pro-gun and put cultish, bullshit ideology before people's lives.
He just lied or had someone else lie and the gun laws you're rushing to the defense of completely failed to catch it because they're hopelessly inadequate and designed to put lobby profits before people's lives.
At this point, we've covered 80% of mass shooters so we're looking good statistically.
Now we've covered over 90% of mass shooters, but most of these ones are children.
He bought the gun in a private sale that didn't require a background check because for some surreal reason, the pro-gun crowd is completely okay with that and fights the closing of the loophole.
He bought a previously legally purchased, poorly secured, promptly stolen gun from a stranger, because illegal firearms don't grow on trees, they're endlessly (and profitably!) by millions of people like yourself.
Which covers 99% of mass shooters. Of course deep down, you already knew all of that didn't you?
You're just not allowed to admit it out loud, because the moment you admit that in fact yes, gun control could have stopped many of these clearly telegraphed attacks, you'd have to also admit that you pushed for the laws that killed those people.
So how about instead of me explaining "how gun control laws would have stopped this" over and over again, you go fuck yourself?
You've overthrown zero tyrants. You've done nothing to lower the crime rate. You've let "suicide with dad's protect-my-family gun" become the number one cause of death for teenagers. You've insisted for 25 years that you have the answers and you've failed every single time.
Lol so no you don't have any ideas on how more gun control would have stopped this...also hilarious that you bring up the police being far right....all the while wanting to disarm people lol yes please tell me how giving far right racist bullies Monopoly on force is a good thing.
Oh did you solve racism with your cool guns? Did you stop state violence?
Nope, of course you didn't. You're full of shit like always and minorities are safer in countries with gun control.
Just another day of the pro-gun crowd delivering on zero of their promises.
A pretty simple how for that case would be to have a protected database where mental health professionals and institutions would report individuals with issues deemed worryng enough to bar from purchasing a gun. Then during the background check they would reference that db. If the person being checked is verified to be in that db fail the check. Maybe have some revaluation options or whatever but it's not hard to imagine how reasonable laws that are actually enforced could actually help. The half baked laws that are half assed enforced and then held up as an example of any laws at all being fundamentally impossible just isn't convincing.
This guy was barred from having a firearm already.
Are you sure you're not confusing him with the previous mass shooter in Maine from 6 months ago?
I know they're hard to keep track of when they happen every month but as far as I've been able to tell, 2 days ago this man was a "responsible gun owner" who wasn't disarmed using the red flags laws (that the pro-gun crowd opposes) despite seeking urgent treatment for mental health problems (which the pro-gun crowd insists is the solution).
Naa this guy should have had his firearms pulled the second he was involuntarily committed. This is a failure of law enforcement once again.
This won't work. Do you want more unmedicated people with guns?
People with mental health issues wouldn't ever seek care if owning a firearm was linked to healthcare. Now we're stigmatizing mental health treatment.
We want people to get care and be managed so they can live a normal life.
If they wanted that, they'd do things like oppose red flag laws, insist background checks remained functionally optional, oppose effective waiting periods and oppose mandatory safe storage laws.
Is "some people care more about their guns than the safety and mental health of themselves and their family" supposed to be an argument for the existing gun laws?
Who exactly is "we" here?
The pro-gun community rushes to blame anyone but themselves, all the while seething with indignation that they get lumped in with people who murder their partners or kill as many children as they can, just because they bought the same guns, from the same stores, under the same systems, with the same requirements as the murderer.
But boy they're not shy doing unto others.
Half the world population will experience mental health problems in their lifetime. If the 80% of mass murderers using legally purchased guns is a low enough figure to sweep under the rug, the fraction of a fraction of mentally ill people carrying out mass murders isn't even a speck of dust.
This man received urgent mental healthcare, to the standard that modern healthcare can provide anywhere in the world. Then he killed 20 people and injured over a dozen more with his legal firearm.
If you're so certain that mental healthcare is the answer, you can give up your guns until you finish building your perfect healthcare utopia. Maybe you could start with the military, since apparently you have to be mentally ill to kill someone with a gun.
Until then, the current gun laws are horrifically and demonstrably inadequate at keeping guns out of the hands of violent people, despite 25 years of pro-gun cultists insisting that they and they alone have the solutions.
Yeah that's an issue that I would anticipate as well but at least now we are exploring options and identifying what may or may not work and what the trade offs are rather than pretending that it's an impossibility like Mario was doing.
" 'No way to prevent this' , says the only developed country where mass shootings happen regularly."
Do we know if he bought the gun before or after the mental health problems were diagnosed?
We don’t have many laws that will take the guns away after diagnosis, and worse, we seem to have a police force that’s not willing to enforce those laws when they do exist.
Even if he bought them before, involuntary commitment means Leos should be taking them....but as you just stated most LEOs don't talk to each other or do what they need to be doing.
I think this is true: He had some from before and also bought a .308 sniper rifle after having mental issues. There's a lot of info about this guy btw. He made threats to shoot up two different military national guard posts. He committed himself and asked for further treatment when he was being released. Oh, and I thought this was the typical veteran PTSD kind of issue. Actually no, he was trained but didn't see combat. He was having some seriously mind-altering mental breakdowns. His guns were probably talking to him.
If only there were 194 other countries out there that don't have this problem. Then we could have somewhere to look and see if maybe having a gun store on every corner is contributing to this problem.
There are 450+ million firearms in civ hands, if we had a gun problem you would know.
If you're talking about ATF form 4473, it asks "have you ever been adjudicated as a mental detective, OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution", not whether you have any mental health issues.
That form is also not a background check, that's the NICS check, which is separate.
And that's only at time of purchase, so I assume he bought the gun prior to being committed.
That form is part of what's feed into the NICS, and even if he did buy them before. The second he was involuntarily committed he was supposed to have his firearms removed. The ATF and local LE should have been the ones to do so.